R. v. Haevischer

R. v. Haevischer

The application for a publication ban on the witness's name and on names of Triad members was dismissed because the witness's identity was already publicly known and widely reported so a ban would not realistically prevent the identified harm and thus fails the Dagenais/Mentuck necessity and salutary-effect requirement; the supporting affidavit was too anonymous, redacted and hearsay to be accepted; anticipatory bans on answers identifying gang associates are not permissible where those answers are relevant.

Citation
2014 BCSC 1015
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Cody Rae Haevischer; Accused: Matthew James Johnston; Applicant/witness: Quang Vinh Thang Le (Michael Le)
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal — Trial With Publication Ban Application / Hearing on Application for Publication Ban (trial in Progress)
Outcome
Application dismissed in respect of publication ban on name and on Triad member identities; limited publication ban continued for supporting materials; existing ban on likeness and safety measures continued
Legal Topics
Section 486.5 Criminal Code, Dagenais/mentuck Test, Publication Ban on Identity, Disclosure and Hearsay Affidavit Reliability
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Publication Bans Witness Protection Section 486.5 Criminal Code Dagenais/mentuck Test Publication Ban on Identity Disclosure and Hearsay Affidavit Reliability

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Cody Rae Haevischer

Accused

Matthew James Johnston

Accused

Quang Vinh Thang Le (Michael Le)

Applicant/witness

Procedural Posture

Criminal — Trial With Publication Ban Application / Hearing on Application for Publication Ban (trial in Progress)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a publication ban on the witness's name is necessary to prevent identified risks of harm
  2. 2 Whether a publication ban should extend to names of Triad members identified in evidence
  3. 3 Whether a heavily redacted, anonymous hearsay affidavit is admissible and sufficient to support a publication ban

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a publication ban on the witness's name and on names of Triad members was dismissed because the witness's identity was already publicly known and widely reported so a ban would not realistically prevent the identified harm and thus fails the Dagenais/Mentuck necessity and salutary-effect requirement; the supporting affidavit was too anonymous, redacted and hearsay to be accepted; anticipatory bans on answers identifying gang associates are not permissible where those answers are relevant.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed in respect of publication ban on name and on Triad member identities; limited publication ban continued for supporting materials; existing ban on likeness and safety measures continued

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Continued publication ban on any material filed in support of this application