R. v. Nicholson

R. v. Nicholson

Leave to cross-examine was denied because the defence failed to show a reasonable basis that cross-examination would likely elicit probative evidence undermining the statutory preconditions; the affidavit objectively set out grounds for probable cause and explained investigative necessity and alternatives, and the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2016 BCSC 2099
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused/applicant: Christopher Michael Makoto Nicholson
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Wiretap Authorization Review / Application for Leave to Cross Examine Affiant (garofoli Review)
Outcome
Application for leave to cross-examine the affiant dismissed
Legal Topics
Wiretap/part VI Authorization, Investigative Necessity, Probable Cause, Cross Examination of Affiant (garofoli), Confidential Informant Issues (lachance)
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Search and Seizure Evidence Privacy Law Charter (s.8) Wiretap/part VI Authorization Investigative Necessity Probable Cause +2 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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Christopher Michael Makoto Nicholson

Accused/applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Wiretap Authorization Review / Application for Leave to Cross Examine Affiant (garofoli Review)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to cross-examine the affiant should be granted under Garofoli
  2. 2 Whether the wiretap authorization related to a specified crime and satisfied probable cause
  3. 3 Whether investigative necessity was met and if alternative methods were intentionally undermined

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to cross-examine was denied because the defence failed to show a reasonable basis that cross-examination would likely elicit probative evidence undermining the statutory preconditions; the affidavit objectively set out grounds for probable cause and explained investigative necessity and alternatives, and the defence produced no material beyond speculative theory that the affiant deliberately misled the authorizing judge or that investigative methods were engineered to fail.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to cross-examine the affiant dismissed

Orders

  • Application for leave to cross-examine the affiant denied