R. v. Montgomery

R. v. Montgomery

The source was a confidential informant entitled to informer privilege; the only exception is innocence at stake and the accused failed to establish on the evidence (beyond speculation) that disclosure was necessary to demonstrate innocence or that the informant was a material witness; accordingly privilege stands and disclosure is denied.

Citation
2014 BCSC 1812
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
26 September 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application on Informer Privilege and Disclosure / Pre Trial and Interlocutory Hearings Including Ex Parte Hearing; Reasons for Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Defence application for disclosure dismissed; informer privilege upheld.
Legal Topics
Informer Privilege, Innocence at Stake Exception, Material Witness Argument, Disclosure Obligations
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Disclosure/privilege Informer Privilege Innocence at Stake Exception Material Witness Argument Disclosure Obligations

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Clifford Roger Montgomery

Accused

Tariq Mohammed Aslam

Accused

Salvador Ascencio-Chavez

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Application on Informer Privilege and Disclosure / Pre Trial and Interlocutory Hearings Including Ex Parte Hearing; Reasons for Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the source was a confidential informant entitled to informer privilege
  2. 2 Whether any exception to informer privilege applied (specifically innocence at stake/material witness)
  3. 3 Whether further disclosure or summaries of ex‑parte evidence must be provided to the defence

Ratio Decidendi

The source was a confidential informant entitled to informer privilege; the only exception is innocence at stake and the accused failed to establish on the evidence (beyond speculation) that disclosure was necessary to demonstrate innocence or that the informant was a material witness; accordingly privilege stands and disclosure is denied.

Court Disposition

Defence application for disclosure dismissed; informer privilege upheld.

Orders

  • Defence application for disclosure of information over which Crown asserts informer privilege is dismissed.
  • No further summaries of the ex-parte evidence or disclosure concerning the informant will be provided to the defence.