The other question I would really like to come to grips with is the question on disclosure of the threshold of relevance. We have heard, of course, that following Stinchcombe, the threshold is that the crown must produce anything that is “not clearly irrelevant”. I've heard other phrases regarding evidence that is potentially relevant. I wonder if you two fine legal minds would care to suggest what you think might be a threshold that would be both fair to the accused and more manageable for the prosecution than is the existing Stinchcombe threshold of “not clearly irrelevant”.
On April 15th, 2010. See this statement in context.