R. v. Coburn

R. v. Coburn

Hewitt was not an agent of the state at the time he surreptitiously recorded conversations with Coburn; the Charter does not apply to Hewitt's private interceptions made before any relationship with police; the s.184.2 wiretap authorization was supported by a full and frank affidavit and any minor errors were immaterial so the authorizing judge could have granted it; therefore the applications to exclude the Hewitt recordings and the intercepted communications fail and the evidence is admissible (alternatively admission would not bring administration of justice into disrepute under s.24(2)).

Citation
2003 BCSC 243
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Gordon Coburn
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Counselling to Commit Murder; Charter Applications / Pre Trial/trial Applications to Exclude Evidence Under Charter Ss.7 and 8 and Review of S.184.2 Authorization
Outcome
Applications to exclude evidence dismissed; evidence admissible
Legal Topics
Charter S.7, Charter S.8, S.24(2) Exclusion of Evidence, Agent of the State, Interception of Private Communications, Wiretap Authorization S.184.2 Criminal Code, Judicial Review of Authorization, Material Non Disclosure
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Law Privacy Law Charter S.7 Charter S.8 S.24(2) Exclusion of Evidence Agent of the State +4 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 6 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Gordon Coburn

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Counselling to Commit Murder; Charter Applications / Pre Trial/trial Applications to Exclude Evidence Under Charter Ss.7 and 8 and Review of S.184.2 Authorization

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Hewitt was an agent of the state when he recorded communications
  2. 2 Whether interception of communications breached ss.7 and 8 of the Charter
  3. 3 When Charter protections crystallize (time of interception versus time police receive/use evidence)

Ratio Decidendi

Hewitt was not an agent of the state at the time he surreptitiously recorded conversations with Coburn; the Charter does not apply to Hewitt's private interceptions made before any relationship with police; the s.184.2 wiretap authorization was supported by a full and frank affidavit and any minor errors were immaterial so the authorizing judge could have granted it; therefore the applications to exclude the Hewitt recordings and the intercepted communications fail and the evidence is admissible (alternatively admission would not bring administration of justice into disrepute under s.24(2)).

Court Disposition

Applications to exclude evidence dismissed; evidence admissible

Orders

  • Application to exclude Hewitt Communications dismissed
  • Application to quash or exclude evidence obtained pursuant to the s.184.2 authorization dismissed