The White Paper states that "Our reforms are intended to secure that there is a fair balance between the defense and the prosecution and to ensure that the needs and rights of victims and witnesses are considered at every stage." It is clear, however, that the central message of the White Paper is more "crime control" than "due process." Human rights are barely mentioned, whether referring to the rights of the suspect or of the victim/witness. On the other hand, the proposal to remove the decision to charge from the police to the Crown Prosecutor apparently is an effort to raise the standard of evidence sufficiency for charging, since the Crown Prosecutor is not likely to bring a charge unless he/she believes there is sufficient evidence to gain a conviction in court. A pilot study of this new system of charging, however, suggests that a higher proportion of guilty pleas are being entered earlier in the process at sites where the charging initiative is with the Crown Prosecutor. This poses the question as to whether defendants pleading guilty earlier in the process -- possibly under the defense attorney's belief that the case must be strong or the charge would not have been brought -- represents a weakening of procedural protections or a strengthening of protections at an earlier point in the process. Given the lack of clarity and emphasis the White Paper gives to procedural and evidentiary protections, the next stage of reform should include a simplification of the reform proposals by presenting them in the form of codified criminal law. There should also be significant research into the "needs and rights" of victims and witnesses. The reform should further provide for fewer key criminal justice agencies with provision for more resources. 12 notes and 26 references