R. v. Cox

R. v. Cox

The application under s.486.7 was dismissed because the judge was not satisfied the order was necessary to protect the witness's security or in the interest of the proper administration of justice — factors included the routine nature of such witnesses in criminal trials, the likelihood the witness's appearance was already known, the lack of a direct link between the accused and the shooting, the accommodation's limited effect on actual security, and the witness's evidence not being vital to the Crown's case.

Citation
2018 BCSC 1847
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
11 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Oral Ruling on Crown Application for Testimonial Accommodations Under S.486.7 (trial Application)
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Testimonial Accommodations, Section 486.7 Criminal Code, Closed Circuit Television Testimony, Publication Bans, Open Court Principle
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Witness Security Court Procedure Testimonial Accommodations Section 486.7 Criminal Code Closed Circuit Television Testimony Publication Bans +1 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 3 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 / Oral Ruling on Crown Application for Testimonial Accommodations Under S.486.7 (trial Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an order under s.486.7 is necessary to protect the security of the witness
  2. 2 Whether the accused and the public can be prevented from seeing a witness's face while the witness testifies via closed-circuit television
  3. 3 Whether the accommodation is in the interest of the proper administration of justice

Ratio Decidendi

The application under s.486.7 was dismissed because the judge was not satisfied the order was necessary to protect the witness's security or in the interest of the proper administration of justice — factors included the routine nature of such witnesses in criminal trials, the likelihood the witness's appearance was already known, the lack of a direct link between the accused and the shooting, the accommodation's limited effect on actual security, and the witness's evidence not being vital to the Crown's case.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • Application for testimonial accommodations under s.486.7 dismissed.
  • Publication ban under s.486.5 of the Criminal Code restricting publication, broadcasting or transmission of evidence that could identify a victim/witness/undercover officer (applies indefinitely unless otherwise ordered).