R. v. Mooring and Woods -- Ruling

R. v. Mooring and Woods -- Ruling

The defence submission is accepted: although the intercepted statements were probative and could have been led once the trial proceeded judge-alone, the Crown's prior representation that it would not lead the edited portions induced defence reliance and strategic decisions; fairness requires excluding the Crown's...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2000 BCSC 978
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Ian Ross Mooring; Accused: Ronald James Woods
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 June 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Judge Alone, Mid Trial (cross Examination)
Outcome
Crown's application to cross-examine with the edited intercepted statements withdrawn; defence submission accepted; ruling against the Crown
Legal Topics
Intercepted Communications, Prior Inconsistent Statements, Trial Fairness, Severance, Splitting of Crown's Case
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Evidence Intercepted Communications Prior Inconsistent Statements Trial Fairness Severance Splitting of Crown's Case

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Ian Ross Mooring

Accused

Ronald James Woods

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial Judge Alone, Mid Trial (cross Examination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether intercepted communications containing prior inconsistent statements could be used in cross-examination after the Crown had previously represented it would not lead those portions
  2. 2 Whether leading the previously edited statements would cause unfair prejudice to co-accused Mooring and require severance
  3. 3 Whether the Crown may split its case by withholding relevant evidence and later relying on it after trial dynamics change

Ratio Decidendi

The defence submission is accepted: although the intercepted statements were probative and could have been led once the trial proceeded judge-alone, the Crown's prior representation that it would not lead the edited portions induced defence reliance and strategic decisions; fairness requires excluding the Crown's belated use of those statements and the Crown may not split its case to the prejudice of a co-accused.

Court Disposition

Crown's application to cross-examine with the edited intercepted statements withdrawn; defence submission accepted; ruling against the Crown

Orders

  • Crown not permitted to lead the edited portions of the intercepted communications in cross-examination of Mr. Woods