R. v. Belcourt

R. v. Belcourt

Where communications relate to confidential informant information, solicitor-client legal advice sought by police from Crown counsel, or materials created for the dominant purpose of litigation, privilege was properly established and redactions were upheld; investigative-technique/public interest privilege requires...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2012 BCSC 234
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Andrew Jonathon Belcourt; Accused: Samuel McGrath
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Disclosure Review
Outcome
Partial: many redactions upheld for informer privilege, solicitor-client privilege and litigation privilege; several investigative-technique redactions upheld where specific risk shown; other investigative-technique redactions not upheld and must be un-redacted or justified with further evidence.
Legal Topics
Informer Privilege, Solicitor Client Privilege, Litigation Privilege, Public Interest Privilege, Investigative Techniques, Full Answer and Defence
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Evidence Disclosure Privilege Police Procedure Informer Privilege Solicitor Client Privilege Litigation Privilege +3 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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Andrew Jonathon Belcourt

Accused

Samuel McGrath

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial Disclosure Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether redactions to Crown disclosure are protected by informer privilege
  2. 2 Whether communications between police and Crown attract solicitor-client privilege
  3. 3 Whether documents are protected by litigation privilege

Ratio Decidendi

Where communications relate to confidential informant information, solicitor-client legal advice sought by police from Crown counsel, or materials created for the dominant purpose of litigation, privilege was properly established and redactions were upheld; investigative-technique/public interest privilege requires specific evidence that disclosure would cause serious risk to the administration of justice and will be refused where the content is inferable, routine, or necessary for full answer and defence. The court upheld numerous redactions (informer, solicitor-client and litigation privilege) and ordered disclosure or further evidence from the Crown for particular redactions where...

Court Disposition

Partial: many redactions upheld for informer privilege, solicitor-client privilege and litigation privilege; several investigative-technique redactions upheld where specific risk shown; other investigative-technique redactions not upheld and must be un-redacted or justified with further evidence.

Orders

  • Maintain redaction of informant-related material (CAT 2, CAT 3, CAT 4, CAT 5) where confidentiality was established
  • Maintain redaction of recorded solicitor-client communication (Chantal Young cellphone call)