R. v. Stewart

R. v. Stewart

On the excised affidavit material the association between Stewart and Adkins was insufficient to establish a reasonable probability that Stewart was a party to the Soomel murder; the surveillance evidence and temporal association were at best conjecture (possible drug dealings or other innocent explanations) and did...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2016 BCSC 2508
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Colin Victor Stewart; Accused: Kevin James Jones
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Voir Dire; Facial Challenge to DNA Warrant / Oral Ruling on Voir Dire #7; Consideration of Excised Affidavit Material and Validity of DNA Warrant
Outcome
DNA warrant set aside; taking of Colin Stewart's DNA on June 20, 2014 was unlawful
Legal Topics
DNA Warrant, Search Authorization Under S.487.05(1), Party to Offence Under S.21(1), Reasonable Grounds/credible Based Probability, Facial Challenge to Warrant
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Evidence Forensic DNA Privacy/search and Seizure DNA Warrant Search Authorization Under S.487.05(1) Party to Offence Under S.21(1) Reasonable Grounds/credible Based Probability +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Colin Victor Stewart

Accused

Kevin James Jones

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Voir Dire; Facial Challenge to DNA Warrant / Oral Ruling on Voir Dire #7; Consideration of Excised Affidavit Material and Validity of DNA Warrant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether, after excisions to the information to obtain (ITO), the authorizing justice could have been satisfied that the statutory requirements of s.487.05(1)(c) were met
  2. 2 Whether the association between Stewart and Adkins met the reasonable probability standard required to conclude Stewart was a party to the offence under s.21(1)
  3. 3 Whether temporal and associative evidence (meeting with UN members, vehicle sightings, physical description) amounted to more than conjecture

Ratio Decidendi

On the excised affidavit material the association between Stewart and Adkins was insufficient to establish a reasonable probability that Stewart was a party to the Soomel murder; the surveillance evidence and temporal association were at best conjecture (possible drug dealings or other innocent explanations) and did not satisfy s.487.05(1)(c); therefore the June 20, 2014 DNA warrant could not have been validly authorized and must be set aside.

Court Disposition

DNA warrant set aside; taking of Colin Stewart's DNA on June 20, 2014 was unlawful

Orders

  • June 20, 2014 DNA warrant set aside
  • Taking of Colin Stewart's DNA on June 20, 2014 declared unlawful