R. v. Ketch

R. v. Ketch

On the whole of the trial evidence and applying the objective multi‑factor test in R. v. Mack, the court found the Crown disproved entrapment on the balance of probabilities: police conduct did not amount to inducement because there were no threats or exploitation of vulnerabilities, the accused initiated and set the terms of the transactions, persistence did not overbear his will, and use of a paid agent alone is not inherently abusive; therefore the stay application was denied and convictions stand.

Citation
2017 BCSC 2263
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Douglas Lawrence Ketch
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Post Conviction Application for Stay of Proceedings (entrapment)
Outcome
Application for a stay of proceedings denied; convictions upheld; matter to proceed to sentencing
Legal Topics
Entrapment, Stay of Proceedings Under S.24(1) Charter, Undercover Police Operations, Duress
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Entrapment Stay of Proceedings Under S.24(1) Charter Undercover Police Operations Duress

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Douglas Lawrence Ketch

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Post Conviction Application for Stay of Proceedings (entrapment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether police conduct during Project E-Piracy amounted to entrapment under the second branch of R. v. Mack
  2. 2 Whether police induced the accused to commit the offences as opposed to merely providing an opportunity
  3. 3 Whether a stay of proceedings is required as a Charter remedy under s.24(1) if entrapment established

Ratio Decidendi

On the whole of the trial evidence and applying the objective multi‑factor test in R. v. Mack, the court found the Crown disproved entrapment on the balance of probabilities: police conduct did not amount to inducement because there were no threats or exploitation of vulnerabilities, the accused initiated and set the terms of the transactions, persistence did not overbear his will, and use of a paid agent alone is not inherently abusive; therefore the stay application was denied and convictions stand.

Court Disposition

Application for a stay of proceedings denied; convictions upheld; matter to proceed to sentencing

Orders

  • Stay of proceedings denied
  • Convictions confirmed