The respondent also relies upon the secrecy rule regarding a police informer's identity, noting that it is subject only to the exception that, where it is necessary to demonstrate the innocence of an accused person, the informer's identity may be revealed. There are no exceptions in proceedings other than criminal. The secrecy rule places a duty on a police officer to maintain confidentiality of the informer's identity outside any judicial proceedings; Bisaillon v. Keable et al. (1983), 7 c.C.C. (3d) 385 at 408 to 414 (S.C.C.). It is contended that with the exception of the names of the informant, the applicant was provided with as much information as possible. The applicant was advised of the nature of the alleged escape attempt, the identities of the other persons allegedly involved, and the alleged relationship between his drug trafficking, jewellery smuggling and the escape attempt -- i.e. that the former was undertaken to fund the latter. It is argued that the applicant did respond, at length, both on his own behalf and through counsel, at every stage of the decision-making process.