R. v. Christhurajah

R. v. Christhurajah

Where a witness testifies that he presently recollects seeing a person and that on a prior occasion he selected a photograph of that person, that testimony brings the case within the second Tat category and permits others to testify to the prior photographic identification; prior showings by another agency affect weight, not admissibility, and the defence application to exclude the evidence must be dismissed.

Citation
2016 BCSC 2551
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
14 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Alleged Contravention of Immigration and Refugee Protection Act S.117 / Oral Ruling on Defence Objection to Admission of Prior Photographic Identification Evidence (pre Trial Jury Trial Evidence Ruling)
Outcome
Defence application to exclude Cst. Dev Vasan's testimony dismissed; Crown permitted to call Cst. Dev Vasan to testify regarding the November 9, 2010 photographic identification by witness B387.
Legal Topics
Identification Evidence, Out of Court Identification, Admissibility of Prior Statements, Corroboration, Photographic Identification
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Immigration Law Evidence Identification Evidence Out of Court Identification Admissibility of Prior Statements Corroboration Photographic Identification

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 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Kunarobinson Christhurajah

Accused

Lesly Jana Emmanuel

Accused

Nadarajah Mahendran

Accused

Thampeernayagam Rajaratnam

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Alleged Contravention of Immigration and Refugee Protection Act S.117 / Oral Ruling on Defence Objection to Admission of Prior Photographic Identification Evidence (pre Trial Jury Trial Evidence Ruling)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether evidence that a witness previously identified the accused in a photo is admissible where the witness did not make an in-court identification
  2. 2 Whether the witness adopted the out-of-court identification such that others may testify to that identification
  3. 3 Application of R v Tat and R v Starr to photographic identification evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Where a witness testifies that he presently recollects seeing a person and that on a prior occasion he selected a photograph of that person, that testimony brings the case within the second Tat category and permits others to testify to the prior photographic identification; prior showings by another agency affect weight, not admissibility, and the defence application to exclude the evidence must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Defence application to exclude Cst. Dev Vasan's testimony dismissed; Crown permitted to call Cst. Dev Vasan to testify regarding the November 9, 2010 photographic identification by witness B387.

Orders

  • Application to exclude evidence of Cst. Dev Vasan dismissed
  • Cst. Dev Vasan permitted to testify that he showed a series of photographs on November 9, 2010 and that migrant B387 (Sasikumar Kanthappillai) selected a photograph of Nadarajah Mahendran as the person seen on the shore