R. v. Nuttall

R. v. Nuttall

CSIS's attempt to invoke s.38 was untimely and effectively waived by prior disclosure in the O'Connor proceeding; accordingly the court dismissed the s.38 objection and held the evidence of CSIS surveillance is relevant and admissible for the entrapment analysis.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2016 BCSC 38
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: John Stuart Nuttall; Accused: Amanda Marie Korody; Third Party/intervener: Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS)
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Voir Dire Re Admissibility and S.38 Canada Evidence Act / Oral Ruling on Voir Dire #1 (pre Trial Evidentiary Ruling)
Outcome
CSIS s.38 objection dismissed as untimely; evidence of CSIS surveillance admitted for purposes of entrapment inquiry
Legal Topics
Entrapment, Section 38.01 Canada Evidence Act, O'connor Disclosure Process, Publication Ban Ss.486.5(1) and (9) Criminal Code, CSIS RCMP Cooperation and Parallel Investigations
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Evidence National Security Publication Ban Entrapment Section 38.01 Canada Evidence Act O'connor Disclosure Process Publication Ban Ss.486.5(1) and (9) Criminal Code +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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

John Stuart Nuttall

Accused

Amanda Marie Korody

Accused

Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS)

Third Party/intervener

Procedural Posture

Criminal Voir Dire Re Admissibility and S.38 Canada Evidence Act / Oral Ruling on Voir Dire #1 (pre Trial Evidentiary Ruling)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether CSIS may invoke s.38.01 of the Canada Evidence Act at this stage
  2. 2 Whether evidence of CSIS physical surveillance is relevant to the entrapment issues
  3. 3 Whether CSIS waived or is estopped from raising a s.38 objection by prior disclosure in the O'Connor proceeding

Ratio Decidendi

CSIS's attempt to invoke s.38 was untimely and effectively waived by prior disclosure in the O'Connor proceeding; accordingly the court dismissed the s.38 objection and held the evidence of CSIS surveillance is relevant and admissible for the entrapment analysis.

Court Disposition

CSIS s.38 objection dismissed as untimely; evidence of CSIS surveillance admitted for purposes of entrapment inquiry

Orders

  • CSIS may not raise a s.38.01 objection at this hearing; objection dismissed
  • Publication ban under Criminal Code ss.486.5(1) and 486.5(9) remains in effect prohibiting identification of undercover officers