R. v. Darling

R. v. Darling

The court exercised its case management discretion to declare a single combined crime boss voir dire to determine both probative value under Hart and abuse of process, to permit a separate standalone abuse of process voir dire (but to be resolved last), and to run five identified voir dires concurrently until the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2017 BCSC 2012
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Larry Sinclair Darling
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal First Degree Murder / Pre Trial Voir Dires on Admissibility, Voluntariness and Abuse of Process; Case Management Ruling
Outcome
Court ordered case management directions: continue omnibus post-arrest voir dire; declare four additional voir dires; hold a single crime boss voir dire addressing both Hart prongs; permit a separate standalone abuse of process voir dire to be heard last; run voir dires concurrently until Crown close then resolve...
Legal Topics
Mr. Big Operation, Voir Dire Structure and Sequencing, Admissibility of Confessions, Abuse of Process, Charter Ss.7, 9, 10(b), Voluntariness of Statements, Polygraph Evidence
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Evidence Constitutional Law Civil Procedure/case Management Mr. Big Operation Voir Dire Structure and Sequencing Admissibility of Confessions Abuse of Process +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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Larry Sinclair Darling

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal First Degree Murder / Pre Trial Voir Dires on Admissibility, Voluntariness and Abuse of Process; Case Management Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to conduct one combined voir dire or separate voir dires for the two prongs of R. v. Hart in relation to the crime boss confession
  2. 2 Whether the accused's standalone abuse of process application should be heard in a separate voir dire
  3. 3 Proper sequencing of multiple concurrent voir dires and limits on cross-admissibility of voir dire evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The court exercised its case management discretion to declare a single combined crime boss voir dire to determine both probative value under Hart and abuse of process, to permit a separate standalone abuse of process voir dire (but to be resolved last), and to run five identified voir dires concurrently until the close of the Crown's cases after which they will be resolved sequentially in a specified order with limits on cross-admissibility of voir dire evidence to protect trial fairness.

Court Disposition

Court ordered case management directions: continue omnibus post-arrest voir dire; declare four additional voir dires; hold a single crime boss voir dire addressing both Hart prongs; permit a separate standalone abuse of process voir dire to be heard last; run voir dires concurrently until Crown close then resolve...

Orders

  • Continue blended post-arrest statements voir dire (Crown in the process of calling evidence)
  • Declare four additional voir dires: 2006 statement voluntariness; 2008 statements voluntariness; crime boss statement admissibility (single voir dire for both probative value and abuse of process); standalone abuse of process voir dire