If we were strictly speaking of efficiency and not concerned with making full answer and defence, the answer clearly is it would reduce delay, but our point is that there's a broader concern here, and that is making full answer and defence.
In cases such as this, for the reasons that I articulated earlier, there's just too much risk that constitutional rights will be violated. Section 7 of the charter guarantees fundamental justice. In my experience, it's the rare case where defence counsel goes through by rote and challenges continuity of exhibits and so on as a matter of course. It's the rare case because there are so many other means by which we can create the culture that Mr. Cowper's been talking about.
I don't see admitting routine police evidence ultimately as being the answer here. Admitting it in that fashion I think is going to be problematic. It's inevitably going to lead to constitutional challenges and greater uncertainty, and we need to guard against that as we administer the criminal justice system.