R. v. Riley

R. v. Riley

On the affidavit evidence the authorizing judge could reasonably have issued the Part VI authorization; the authorization was not over-broad, the intercepted communications were non-conscriptive, there was no serious s.8 Charter breach, and in any event admission of the intercepted communications would not bring the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2001 BCSC 1170
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Barry Wayne Riley; Accused: David Brock Henry
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 August 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal First Degree Murder / Voir Dire on Admissibility of Intercepted Communications (pre Trial Ruling)
Outcome
Application to set aside Part VI authorization denied; intercepted communications admissible
Legal Topics
Part VI Wiretap/authorization, Section 8 Charter (unreasonable Search and Seizure), Section 24(2) Charter (exclusion of Evidence), Review of Authorizations (garofoli/araujo), Undercover Operations, Publication Ban
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Evidence Constitutional Law Procedure Privacy and Surveillance Part VI Wiretap/authorization Section 8 Charter (unreasonable Search and Seizure) Section 24(2) Charter (exclusion of Evidence) +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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Barry Wayne Riley

Accused

David Brock Henry

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal First Degree Murder / Voir Dire on Admissibility of Intercepted Communications (pre Trial Ruling)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Part VI authorization to intercept private communications was valid
  2. 2 Whether the interception violated the accuseds' s.8 Charter rights
  3. 3 Whether intercepted communications should be excluded under s.24(2) of the Charter

Ratio Decidendi

On the affidavit evidence the authorizing judge could reasonably have issued the Part VI authorization; the authorization was not over-broad, the intercepted communications were non-conscriptive, there was no serious s.8 Charter breach, and in any event admission of the intercepted communications would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute under s.24(2); accordingly the application to set aside the authorization is denied and the communications are admissible.

Court Disposition

Application to set aside Part VI authorization denied; intercepted communications admissible

Orders

  • Application to set aside authorization denied
  • All evidence taken and submissions in this proceeding while the jury is not present shall not be published in any newspaper or broadcast until the jury has rendered its verdict