R. v. Pickton

R. v. Pickton

Judge establishes a two‑part test for permitting cross‑examination in this context (reasonable possibility of misrepresentation/omission subverting the prior authorization process; and that proposed cross‑examination is likely to assist in determining that issue), applies it to the facts, finds the omission not material given the comprehensive affidavit and prior authorizations, and dismisses the application to cross‑examine and alternative severance request.

Citation
2006 BCSC 434
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Robert William Pickton
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Voir Dire Re Authorization P/08; Application to Cross Examine Affiant
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Part VI Criminal Code Intercept Authorizations, Section 8 Charter Privacy, Cross Examination of Affiant, Prior Authorization Disclosure Obligations, Warrant/authorization Vitiation and Severance
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Search and Seizure Privacy Law Part VI Criminal Code Intercept Authorizations Section 8 Charter Privacy Cross Examination of Affiant +2 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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Robert William Pickton

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Voir Dire Re Authorization P/08; Application to Cross Examine Affiant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to cross-examine the affiant who swore the affidavit for authorization P/08
  2. 2 Whether omissions/misrepresentations in the affidavit subverted the prior authorization process such that authorization P/08 must be set aside or severed
  3. 3 Whether cross-examination would likely elicit testimony discrediting statutory preconditions for P/08

Ratio Decidendi

Judge establishes a two‑part test for permitting cross‑examination in this context (reasonable possibility of misrepresentation/omission subverting the prior authorization process; and that proposed cross‑examination is likely to assist in determining that issue), applies it to the facts, finds the omission not material given the comprehensive affidavit and prior authorizations, and dismisses the application to cross‑examine and alternative severance request.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • Application to cross-examine the affiant is dismissed.
  • Alternative request to sever or set aside portion of authorization P/08 relating to cell interception is denied.