R. v. Cox

R. v. Cox

After excising erroneous or misleading material and allowing permissible amplification that corrected good faith errors, sufficient reliable evidence remained (notably forensic links at 128A Street and identification material) from which a reasonable and probable grounds assessment could be made by the issuing justice; the affiant's errors were negligent/sloppy but not dishonest or a subversion of process, therefore the warrants were lawful and the applications dismissed.

Citation
2018 BCSC 1093
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Harinam Cox; Accused: Shamil Ali; Accused: Gopal Figueredo; Accused: Erlan Acosta; Accused: Ellwood Bradbury; Accused: Matthew Stewart
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Voir Dire (oral Ruling) Challenging Warrants for DNA Sampling
Outcome
Applications dismissed; warrants for taking bodily substances upheld as lawful and valid
Legal Topics
Search Warrant Validity, DNA Sampling Warrants, Identity Evidence, Disclosure and Omissions in ITO, Amplification of Warrant Materials, Publication Ban
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Charter Law Search and Seizure Forensic Evidence Search Warrant Validity DNA Sampling Warrants Identity Evidence Disclosure and Omissions in ITO +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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Harinam Cox

Accused

Shamil Ali

Accused

Gopal Figueredo

Accused

Erlan Acosta

Accused

Ellwood Bradbury

Accused

Matthew Stewart

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Voir Dire (oral Ruling) Challenging Warrants for DNA Sampling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Information to Obtain (ITO) contained sufficient reliable information to establish reasonable and probable grounds for DNA warrants
  2. 2 Whether material errors, omissions or misleading statements in the ITO required exclusion or quashing of the warrants
  3. 3 Whether the affiant acted in bad faith or deliberately misled the authorizing judge

Ratio Decidendi

After excising erroneous or misleading material and allowing permissible amplification that corrected good faith errors, sufficient reliable evidence remained (notably forensic links at 128A Street and identification material) from which a reasonable and probable grounds assessment could be made by the issuing justice; the affiant's errors were negligent/sloppy but not dishonest or a subversion of process, therefore the warrants were lawful and the applications dismissed.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed; warrants for taking bodily substances upheld as lawful and valid

Orders

  • Applications by Bradbury and Stewart challenging the DNA warrants dismissed
  • Warrants for the taking of bodily substances upheld