R. v. Haevischer

R. v. Haevischer

On the evidence of the handlers the Crown established on a balance of probabilities that A6, A9 and E2 were confidential informants and that disclosure of the redacted source material would tend to identify them; judicial editing was declined and the applications for further disclosure were dismissed because...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2014 BCSC 521
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Cody Rae Haevischer; Accused: Matthew James Johnston
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Surrey Six Murders / Pre Trial Disclosure Applications Re: Informant Privilege
Outcome
Applications dismissed; Crown claims of informant privilege upheld for A6, A9 and E2
Legal Topics
Informant Privilege, Judicial Editing, Stinchcombe Disclosure, Innocence at Stake Exception
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Evidence Disclosure Legal Privilege Informant Privilege Judicial Editing Stinchcombe Disclosure Innocence at Stake Exception

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Cody Rae Haevischer

Accused

Matthew James Johnston

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Surrey Six Murders / Pre Trial Disclosure Applications Re: Informant Privilege

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether A6, A9 and E2 are confidential informants entitled to informant privilege
  2. 2 Whether withheld information can be disclosed or judicially edited without risking identification
  3. 3 Whether Crown must re-contact A6 to seek waiver

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence of the handlers the Crown established on a balance of probabilities that A6, A9 and E2 were confidential informants and that disclosure of the redacted source material would tend to identify them; judicial editing was declined and the applications for further disclosure were dismissed because informant privilege applies absolutely absent an invoked innocence-at-stake exception.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed; Crown claims of informant privilege upheld for A6, A9 and E2

Orders

  • Application for further information regarding A6 dismissed
  • Application for further information regarding A9 dismissed