Thank you.
I'm not really sure what the committee can recommend. You're absolutely correct on one of the main issues, and I can tell you about one of the main issues, not anecdotally but factually. In the second case I related to the panel, the main issue is a wiretap affidavit that has many informants. There are confidential informant problems with it. If that is disclosed, the obvious concern is that those informants' lives will be in danger.
Because of the way the information was put into that affidavit, we have had to basically tear it apart and put it back together. We're still not absolutely confident that we have it right yet, because they used a lot of very specific information with regard to information, so that has taken literally five or six months to do. That's one of the issues. Confidential informants: that's our main concern.
With regard to ongoing investigations, we can always basically withhold disclosure to protect them, but ultimately, as we approach trial, we have to tell the police to make a decision on whether they are going to continue the investigation. Otherwise, we have to disclose it. I guess part of the problem is that these files are so big and involve so many different mechanisms and parties; it seems to me that there is not consistently one thing or another that goes wrong.
You put so many facets into one of these files. We're talking about prosecution, the courts, defence lawyers, the police, and even civilian members of the police. When you put so many so facets into one of these files, it always seems that somewhere along the line there is a breakdown.
One case is not the same as the next. I can't put my thumb on what the general problem is. However, I can say that it seems in many cases there's always one facet that goes wrong, and I don't know what to do about that.