R. v. Balbar

R. v. Balbar

The Crown met its burden under Hart: the probative value of the accused's detailed Mr. Big statements and confession (including corroborating follow-up evidence) significantly outweighed the prejudicial effect; the defence did not prove that police conduct in Project Eventail crossed the line to abuse of process; therefore specified Mr. Big evidence is admissible at trial (Scenarios 30, 33 and 36).

Citation
2014 BCSC 2285
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Robert Donald Balbar
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal (murder) / Voir Dire (pre Trial Admissibility of Mr. Big Evidence)
Outcome
Voir dire granted in part: Mr. Big evidence admitted for trial limited to Scenario 30 (Exhibits 42,42B), Scenario 33 (Exhibits 44,44A) and Scenario 36 (Exhibits 21,21A); no abuse of process found.
Legal Topics
Mr. Big Technique, Confession Admissibility, Probative Value Vs Prejudicial Effect, Abuse of Process, Voir Dire, Expert Evidence on Intellectual Disability, Holdback Evidence
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Procedure Police Undercover Operations Abuse of Process Mr. Big Technique Confession Admissibility Probative Value Vs Prejudicial Effect +3 more

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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Robert Donald Balbar

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal (murder) / Voir Dire (pre Trial Admissibility of Mr. Big Evidence)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether confessions obtained in a Mr. Big operation are admissible under the Hart framework
  2. 2 Whether the probative value of the Mr. Big confession outweighs its prejudicial effect
  3. 3 Whether the conduct of the police in Project Eventail amounted to an abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown met its burden under Hart: the probative value of the accused's detailed Mr. Big statements and confession (including corroborating follow-up evidence) significantly outweighed the prejudicial effect; the defence did not prove that police conduct in Project Eventail crossed the line to abuse of process; therefore specified Mr. Big evidence is admissible at trial (Scenarios 30, 33 and 36).

Court Disposition

Voir dire granted in part: Mr. Big evidence admitted for trial limited to Scenario 30 (Exhibits 42,42B), Scenario 33 (Exhibits 44,44A) and Scenario 36 (Exhibits 21,21A); no abuse of process found.

Orders

  • Admit into evidence at trial: Scenario 30 audio (Exhibits 42,42B), Scenario 33 audio (Exhibits 44,44A) and Scenario 36 video/transcript (Exhibits 21,21A)
  • Publication ban pursuant to Criminal Code ss.486.5(1) and 486.5(9) regarding any information identifying undercover police operators