R. v. Pelletier

R. v. Pelletier

A trial judge has inherent jurisdiction to refer certain mid-trial interlocutory applications to another superior court judge when no case management judge has been appointed, provided the referred matter does not affect the nature of the trial or the determination of guilt (e.g. does not require findings on core admissibility or facts), and where referral advances the timely, orderly and fair administration of justice; on the facts the disclosure application involving prejudicial intercepted communications should be referred and the judge so ordered.

Citation
2018 BCSC 351
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Leonard Allan Joseph Pelletier
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Mid Trial Disclosure Application (wiretap Materials)
Outcome
Trial judge exercised inherent jurisdiction and referred the disclosure application to another judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia
Legal Topics
Disclosure, Wiretap/intercept Evidence, Inherent Jurisdiction, Referral to Another Judge, Case Management Judge, Recusal/apprehension of Bias
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Judicial Procedure Administrative of Justice Disclosure Wiretap/intercept Evidence Inherent Jurisdiction Referral to Another Judge +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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Leonard Allan Joseph Pelletier

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial / Mid Trial Disclosure Application (wiretap Materials)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a trial judge who has commenced trial may refer a mid-trial disclosure application to another judge when no case management judge has been appointed
  2. 2 Whether the inherent jurisdiction of the superior court permits such a referral
  3. 3 Whether hearing prejudicial intercepted communications before the trial judge would risk unfair prejudice to the accused

Ratio Decidendi

A trial judge has inherent jurisdiction to refer certain mid-trial interlocutory applications to another superior court judge when no case management judge has been appointed, provided the referred matter does not affect the nature of the trial or the determination of guilt (e.g. does not require findings on core admissibility or facts), and where referral advances the timely, orderly and fair administration of justice; on the facts the disclosure application involving prejudicial intercepted communications should be referred and the judge so ordered.

Court Disposition

Trial judge exercised inherent jurisdiction and referred the disclosure application to another judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia

Orders

  • Disclosure application (wiretap authorizations and related materials) referred to another judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia for determination