As for routine police evidence, Mr. Cooper, we understand the desire to make police work easier. But when our committee considered the notion of routine police evidence, we were of the opinion that it could lead to confusion as to what is being requested and what that implies. The people around the table who were looking at this from the point of defence counsel said on a number of occasions that there could be endless debates. The prosecution could say that something is quite routine and there is no problem. But this goes against the rule requiring witnesses whose testimony relies on their own documents to come to testify with those documents. It is not enough to enter a document into evidence, because a document cannot be cross-examined.
Our committee felt that defence counsel would certainly perceive things differently and that they would tend to limit the interpretation of what constitutes routine evidence. We also felt that courts might well wonder what the routine evidence includes, and that there would be an affront to the basic principle that those who come up with the documents should be present to testify about them.
One might also wonder what is kept as routine evidence. For example, in a traffic stop, when a person is given a breathalyzer test, is the way of dealing with that person routine evidence? During a police operation, what is routine evidence for the officers? They have to come and testify.
We understand the intent behind this, to facilitate the work of police officers, who often have to appear in court. We want to make their task easier and make justice more efficient. On the other hand, that may cause a risk.