R v. Pilarinos

R v. Pilarinos

The judge applied the established directed verdict test (whether there is any admissible evidence upon which a properly instructed jury could reasonably convict), held that the Crown had presented direct and circumstantial evidence capable of supporting the necessary inferences on the elements of s.122 including benefit and breach of duty, and ruled that out-of-court statements relied upon were admissible not for their truth but as circumstantial evidence of state of knowledge; accordingly the directed verdict application on Count 10 was dismissed and the charge proceeds.

Citation
2002 BCSC 810
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Dimitrios Pilarinos; Accused: Glen David Clark
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Motion for Directed Verdict (ruling)
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Breach of Trust (s.122 Criminal Code), Directed Verdict Test, Hearsay as Circumstantial Evidence, Mens Rea: Subjective/recklessness/wilful Blindness, Circumstantial Evidence and Inferential Gaps, Role of the Jury
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Administrative Law Criminal Procedure Breach of Trust (s.122 Criminal Code) Directed Verdict Test Hearsay as Circumstantial Evidence Mens Rea: Subjective/recklessness/wilful Blindness +2 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 5 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Dimitrios Pilarinos

Accused

Glen David Clark

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Motion for Directed Verdict (ruling)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate legal test for a directed verdict
  2. 2 Whether admissible evidence exists on each essential element of s.122
  3. 3 Admissibility and use of out-of-court statements as circumstantial evidence to prove state of mind

Ratio Decidendi

The judge applied the established directed verdict test (whether there is any admissible evidence upon which a properly instructed jury could reasonably convict), held that the Crown had presented direct and circumstantial evidence capable of supporting the necessary inferences on the elements of s.122 including benefit and breach of duty, and ruled that out-of-court statements relied upon were admissible not for their truth but as circumstantial evidence of state of knowledge; accordingly the directed verdict application on Count 10 was dismissed and the charge proceeds.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Directed verdict application on Count 10 dismissed
  • Count 10 to proceed (no acquittal granted)