R. v. Hamer

R. v. Hamer

The application was dismissed because the recordings had been disclosed, the defence failed to timely pursue further disclosure or establish any Charter breach (including s.7 or s.8), and character evidence from intercepted calls is admissible in the dangerous offender sentencing context, so no prohibition on Crown...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2017 BCSC 2720
Parties
Crown/prosecution: Regina; Accused: Michael Louis Hamer
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Dangerous Offender Sentencing / Disclosure Application During Sentencing Proceeding After Jury Conviction and During Cross Examination
Outcome
Application dismissed; Crown permitted to cross-examine on the intercepted telephone call.
Legal Topics
Disclosure Obligations, Charter S.7, Interception of Communications, Cross Examination, Sentencing Dangerous Offender, Character Evidence
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Law Disclosure Obligations Charter S.7 Interception of Communications Cross Examination Sentencing Dangerous Offender +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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown/prosecution

Michael Louis Hamer

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Dangerous Offender Sentencing / Disclosure Application During Sentencing Proceeding After Jury Conviction and During Cross Examination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether cross-examination on an intercepted telephone call disclosed during trial breaches s.7 of the Charter
  2. 2 Whether Crown disclosure was inadequate and whether a remedy (prohibition) should be granted
  3. 3 Admissibility of intercepted communications and character evidence at a dangerous offender sentencing

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the recordings had been disclosed, the defence failed to timely pursue further disclosure or establish any Charter breach (including s.7 or s.8), and character evidence from intercepted calls is admissible in the dangerous offender sentencing context, so no prohibition on Crown cross-examination was warranted.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; Crown permitted to cross-examine on the intercepted telephone call.

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Crown permitted to cross-examine the accused on the intercepted telephone call