R. v. Mastop

R. v. Mastop

The warrant was validated as to the first offence (supplying ammunition used in the Thom murder) and the third offence (operation of a bank account facilitating the Greeks' laundering/trafficking activities) because the ITO and amplification provided a credibly‑based probability and permissible inferences; however material in the ITO asserting that Mastop 'is currently in possession' of an unlicensed high‑powered rifle 'that belongs to' the named informant was misleading and must be excised, and with that material removed there were no reasonable grounds to support the second offence and the related search was unreasonable under s.8.

Citation
2011 BCSC 1883
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: William Jacob Mastop
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 December 2011
Procedural Posture
S.8 Charter Application Challenging Validity of Search Warrant; Voir Dire / Oral Ruling on Voir Dire; Application for Leave to Cross Examine and S.8 Charter Breach; Further S.24(2) Hearing Pending
Outcome
Application partially allowed: Warrant valid as to first and third offences; warrant invalid as to second offence and corresponding search unreasonable; further s.24(2) remedy hearing required
Legal Topics
Search Warrant Validity, Informant Reliability and Corroboration, Section 8 Unreasonable Search, Section 24(2) Exclusion, Criminal Organization Offence S.467.11, Abuse of Process in Prior Authorization
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Procedural Law Search Warrant Validity Informant Reliability and Corroboration Section 8 Unreasonable Search Section 24(2) Exclusion +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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

William Jacob Mastop

Accused

Procedural Posture

S.8 Charter Application Challenging Validity of Search Warrant; Voir Dire / Oral Ruling on Voir Dire; Application for Leave to Cross Examine and S.8 Charter Breach; Further S.24(2) Hearing Pending

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether material in the Information to Obtain (ITO), as amplified on review, could support issuance of the warrant
  2. 2 Whether the authorizing judge had reasonable grounds under s.487 to believe offences contrary to s.467.11 were committed
  3. 3 Whether portions of the ITO were misleading or non‑disclosed such that they must be excised

Ratio Decidendi

The warrant was validated as to the first offence (supplying ammunition used in the Thom murder) and the third offence (operation of a bank account facilitating the Greeks' laundering/trafficking activities) because the ITO and amplification provided a credibly‑based probability and permissible inferences; however material in the ITO asserting that Mastop 'is currently in possession' of an unlicensed high‑powered rifle 'that belongs to' the named informant was misleading and must be excised, and with that material removed there were no reasonable grounds to support the second offence and the related search was unreasonable under s.8.

Court Disposition

Application partially allowed: Warrant valid as to first and third offences; warrant invalid as to second offence and corresponding search unreasonable; further s.24(2) remedy hearing required

Orders

  • Warrant and search held valid insofar as they relate to the first offence (ammunition supplied)
  • Warrant and search held valid insofar as they relate to the third offence (bank account/money laundering allegations)