R. v. Christhurajah

R. v. Christhurajah

The broker's testimony only established that the documents were the kinds of forms typically used and that they appeared related to the transaction, but because he did not witness their preparation or execution and lacked personal knowledge of their origin, his evidence was insufficient to authenticate the documents; therefore Tabs 1, 2 and 3 are inadmissible for lack of proper authentication.

Citation
2016 BCSC 2608
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Kunarobinson Christhurajah; Accused: Lesly Jana Emmanuel; Accused: Nadarajah Mahendran; Accused: Thampeernayagam Rajaratnam
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Voir Dire (admissibility of Documents)
Outcome
Documents at Tabs 1, 2 and 3 excluded as inadmissible for lack of authentication.
Legal Topics
Document Authentication, Admissibility of Evidence, Witness Competency, Voir Dire
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Law Procedural Law Document Authentication Admissibility of Evidence Witness Competency Voir Dire

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Kunarobinson Christhurajah

Accused

Lesly Jana Emmanuel

Accused

Nadarajah Mahendran

Accused

Thampeernayagam Rajaratnam

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Voir Dire (admissibility of Documents)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Crown properly authenticated foreign language documents (Tabs 1,2,3) for admission into evidence
  2. 2 Whether a broker witness with familiarity but without witnessing execution can establish the identity/authenticity of transactional documents

Ratio Decidendi

The broker's testimony only established that the documents were the kinds of forms typically used and that they appeared related to the transaction, but because he did not witness their preparation or execution and lacked personal knowledge of their origin, his evidence was insufficient to authenticate the documents; therefore Tabs 1, 2 and 3 are inadmissible for lack of proper authentication.

Court Disposition

Documents at Tabs 1, 2 and 3 excluded as inadmissible for lack of authentication.

Orders

  • Exclude Exhibit 10 documents at Tabs 1, 2 and 3 from evidence for failure of authentication.