R. v. Handlen

R. v. Handlen

The judge held that contested high-impact scenario interactions and the accused's related utterances are largely admissible because they form non‑duplicative context necessary for the jury to assess the reliability of the confession and the accused's relationship with undercover officers; however, specific passages...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2018 BCSC 2123
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused/defence: Garry Taylor Handlen
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Homicide (mr. Big Operation) / Application Re Editing of Undercover Statements (post Voir Dire)
Legal Topics
Mr. Big Operations, Admission of Confessions, Bad Character Evidence, Prejudicial Vs Probative Balancing, Redaction/editing of Statements, Limiting Jury Instructions
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Evidence Criminal Procedure Mr. Big Operations Admission of Confessions Bad Character Evidence Prejudicial Vs Probative Balancing Redaction/editing of Statements +1 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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Garry Taylor Handlen

Accused/defence

Procedural Posture

Criminal Homicide (mr. Big Operation) / Application Re Editing of Undercover Statements (post Voir Dire)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether portions of interactions and utterances during a Mr. Big operation should be edited or redacted before jury presentation
  2. 2 Whether bad character/high-impact simulated criminality evidence is admissible for context and reliability of confession or unduly prejudicial
  3. 3 What specific lines and clips must be excised because they are misleading, unreliable or unduly prejudicial

Ratio Decidendi

The judge held that contested high-impact scenario interactions and the accused's related utterances are largely admissible because they form non‑duplicative context necessary for the jury to assess the reliability of the confession and the accused's relationship with undercover officers; however, specific passages and references that are misleading, unreliable or risk confusing the jury (including references to a composite sketch, references to other homicides and certain isolated lines) must be excised or redacted to avoid unfair prejudice.