R. v. Montgomery

R. v. Montgomery

E-Piquet informant material is not relevant to the authorization challenge and need not be disclosed; E-Pleura informant material meets the relevance test and should be produced unless protected by informer privilege; the innocence-at-stake exception is not established on the evidence; because the existence and scope of informer privilege were challenged, the court must determine privilege at an ex parte in camera hearing to be scheduled on or before February 11, 2014.

Citation
2014 BCSC 224
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Clifford Roger Montgomery; Accused: Tariq Mohammed Aslam; Accused: Salvador Ascencio-Chavez
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 January 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Disclosure Application / Application for Disclosure During Trial (post Voir Dire, Adjourned)
Outcome
Partial: E-Piquet informant material held not relevant and not disclosed; E-Pleura informant material held relevant but disclosure deferred pending determination of informer privilege at an ex parte in camera hearing; innocence-at-stake exception not met
Legal Topics
Informer Privilege, Disclosure (stinchcombe), Relevance of Disclosure, Innocence at Stake Exception, Wiretap/authorization Challenge
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Informer Privilege Disclosure (stinchcombe) Relevance of Disclosure Innocence at Stake Exception Wiretap/authorization Challenge

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Clifford Roger Montgomery

Accused

Tariq Mohammed Aslam

Accused

Salvador Ascencio-Chavez

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Disclosure Application / Application for Disclosure During Trial (post Voir Dire, Adjourned)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether vetted informant material from Project E-Piquet and E-Pleura is relevant and disclosable
  2. 2 Whether informer privilege protects the E-Pleura informant information from disclosure
  3. 3 Whether the innocence-at-stake exception applies

Ratio Decidendi

E-Piquet informant material is not relevant to the authorization challenge and need not be disclosed; E-Pleura informant material meets the relevance test and should be produced unless protected by informer privilege; the innocence-at-stake exception is not established on the evidence; because the existence and scope of informer privilege were challenged, the court must determine privilege at an ex parte in camera hearing to be scheduled on or before February 11, 2014.

Court Disposition

Partial: E-Piquet informant material held not relevant and not disclosed; E-Pleura informant material held relevant but disclosure deferred pending determination of informer privilege at an ex parte in camera hearing; innocence-at-stake exception not met

Orders

  • E-Piquet informant information is not relevant to this matter and need not be disclosed.
  • E-Pleura informant information meets the relevance test and ought to be produced unless protected by informer privilege.