R. v. Sanghera

R. v. Sanghera

The court declined to determine whether the seized items were "obtained in a manner" infringing s.24(2) at the Garofoli review stage because s.24(2) is concerned with admission or exclusion of evidence at trial and the correct mechanism for excision of unconstitutionally obtained information from a warrant/authorization affidavit is the Garofoli test; any s.24(2) impact on admissibility of intercepted communications may be considered later.

Citation
2012 BCSC 385
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Boby Sanghera; Accused: Navdip Sanghera; Accused: Charanjit Rangi; Accused: Savdip Sanghera; Accused: Jaspreet Virk
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Voir Dire / Garofoli Review of Wiretap Authorization
Outcome
Application to determine under s.24(2) whether seized items were "obtained in a manner" infringing Charter rights is declined; Garofoli test governs current excision review and any s.24(2) admissibility analysis is reserved to the trial/voir dire conclusion.
Legal Topics
Charter S.10(a), Charter S.10(b), Section 24(2) Exclusion of Evidence, Garofoli Test, Wiretap Authorization Review, Search and Seizure, Excision From Affidavit
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Evidence Law Charter S.10(a) Charter S.10(b) Section 24(2) Exclusion of Evidence Garofoli Test Wiretap Authorization Review +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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Boby Sanghera

Accused

Navdip Sanghera

Accused

Charanjit Rangi

Accused

Savdip Sanghera

Accused

Jaspreet Virk

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial Voir Dire / Garofoli Review of Wiretap Authorization

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the seized items were "obtained in a manner" that infringed Charter s.24(2) given earlier s.10(a) and s.10(b) breaches
  2. 2 Whether s.24(2) analysis applies at the Garofoli stage when reviewing a wiretap authorization affidavit
  3. 3 Whether references to the seized items should be excised from the affidavit supporting the wiretap authorization at this stage

Ratio Decidendi

The court declined to determine whether the seized items were "obtained in a manner" infringing s.24(2) at the Garofoli review stage because s.24(2) is concerned with admission or exclusion of evidence at trial and the correct mechanism for excision of unconstitutionally obtained information from a warrant/authorization affidavit is the Garofoli test; any s.24(2) impact on admissibility of intercepted communications may be considered later.

Court Disposition

Application to determine under s.24(2) whether seized items were "obtained in a manner" infringing Charter rights is declined; Garofoli test governs current excision review and any s.24(2) admissibility analysis is reserved to the trial/voir dire conclusion.

Orders

  • Declined to rule under s.24(2) that the seized items were obtained in a manner that infringed Charter rights
  • Directed that review of the wiretap authorization proceed under the Garofoli test and that any s.24(2) issues be addressed at the admissibility stage