R. v. Roy

R. v. Roy

Police deviations from internal policy and timing missteps did not constitute bad faith or an abuse of process; statutory PER protection and the stockpiling authorization were reasonably interpreted to permit the reverse sting; exclusion equivalent to a stay is available only in the clearest cases and is not warranted here; on the evidence the Crown proved conspiracy to traffic and possession for the purpose of trafficking beyond a reasonable doubt.

Citation
2008 BCSC 1934
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Athanassius Ganatsios; Accused: Michael Roy; Intervener: Attorney General of Canada
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal (drug Trafficking) / Voir Dire on Application to Exclude Evidence; Trial on Indictment; Verdict and Reasons
Outcome
Application to exclude evidence and application for stay dismissed; accused found guilty on Count 1 (conspiracy to traffic) and Count 2 (possession for the purpose of trafficking).
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Reverse Sting Operations, Controlled Drugs and Substances Act / PER, Conspiracy to Traffic, Possession for Purpose of Trafficking, Operational Plan Approval, Stockpiling Authorization
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Regulatory Law Police Procedure Abuse of Process Reverse Sting Operations Controlled Drugs and Substances Act / PER Conspiracy to Traffic +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Athanassius Ganatsios

Accused

Michael Roy

Accused

Attorney General of Canada

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Criminal (drug Trafficking) / Voir Dire on Application to Exclude Evidence; Trial on Indictment; Verdict and Reasons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether police conduct in reverse sting amounted to an abuse of process warranting exclusion of evidence or a stay of proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the PER and stockpiling authorization were obtained and properly applied to shield police conduct
  3. 3 Whether deviations from the operational plan and unsanctioned transport of stockpiled marijuana invalidated the investigation

Ratio Decidendi

Police deviations from internal policy and timing missteps did not constitute bad faith or an abuse of process; statutory PER protection and the stockpiling authorization were reasonably interpreted to permit the reverse sting; exclusion equivalent to a stay is available only in the clearest cases and is not warranted here; on the evidence the Crown proved conspiracy to traffic and possession for the purpose of trafficking beyond a reasonable doubt.

Court Disposition

Application to exclude evidence and application for stay dismissed; accused found guilty on Count 1 (conspiracy to traffic) and Count 2 (possession for the purpose of trafficking).

Orders

  • Application to exclude evidence dismissed; no stay of proceedings granted
  • Convictions entered: guilty of conspiracy to traffic in marijuana (Count 1) and guilty of possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking (Count 2)