R. v. Carvery

R. v. Carvery

The Crown's disclosure (including an approximate straight-line distance of about 120–130 feet, that the post was elevated, that officers did not move, use of binoculars, sketches narrowing possible angles, lighting descriptions and areas not observable) was sufficient to allow the accused to make full answer and defence; therefore observation post privilege is upheld and the defence motion for further specific disclosure is denied, subject to possible renewal at trial and consideration of any cross-examination limitations when assessing witness reliability.

Citation
2011 NSSC 283
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty The Queen; Accused: Tirrell Shane Carvery
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Voir Dire — Disclosure Motion
Outcome
Defence motion for further disclosure denied; observation post privilege upheld
Legal Topics
Observation Post Privilege, Right to Full Answer and Defence, Disclosure Orders, Cross Examination Limitations
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Disclosure Surveillance Privilege Public Interest Immunity Observation Post Privilege Right to Full Answer and Defence Disclosure Orders +1 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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty The Queen

Crown

Tirrell Shane Carvery

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Voir Dire — Disclosure Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Crown's observation post privilege prevents disclosure of specific vantage-point details
  2. 2 Whether non-disclosure would prevent the accused from making full answer and defence
  3. 3 Whether the disclosure already provided is sufficient to permit meaningful challenge to identification evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown's disclosure (including an approximate straight-line distance of about 120–130 feet, that the post was elevated, that officers did not move, use of binoculars, sketches narrowing possible angles, lighting descriptions and areas not observable) was sufficient to allow the accused to make full answer and defence; therefore observation post privilege is upheld and the defence motion for further specific disclosure is denied, subject to possible renewal at trial and consideration of any cross-examination limitations when assessing witness reliability.

Court Disposition

Defence motion for further disclosure denied; observation post privilege upheld

Orders

  • Defence motion for further specific disclosure denied
  • Observation post privilege upheld