R. v. Radjenovic

R. v. Radjenovic

On a contextual review of the affidavit together with amplification, the affiant made full, fair and frank disclosure and the affidavit contained sufficient reliable evidence that might reasonably be believed to support issuance of the one‑party consent Authorization; therefore the Authorization was valid, the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2010 BCSC 1750
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Aleksander Radjenovic
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Indictment (counselling to Commit Murder; Firearms Offences) / Voir Dire Pre Trial Ruling on Validity of One‑party Consent Wiretap Authorization
Outcome
Authorization P. 37/2009 (one‑party consent) upheld; interception lawful; no s.8 Charter breach; evidence admissible at trial.
Legal Topics
Wiretap Authorization, One‑party Consent, Section 8 Charter (unreasonable Search), Full, Fair and Frank Disclosure, Informant/agent Reliability, Amplification of Affidavit Evidence
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Law Search and Seizure Communications Interception Law Wiretap Authorization One‑party Consent Section 8 Charter (unreasonable Search) +3 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 4 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Aleksander Radjenovic

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Indictment (counselling to Commit Murder; Firearms Offences) / Voir Dire Pre Trial Ruling on Validity of One‑party Consent Wiretap Authorization

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the affiant failed to disclose material facts in the supporting affidavit (full, fair and frank disclosure)
  2. 2 Whether, after amplification, the affidavit contained sufficient reliable evidence on which an authorizing judge could have issued the one‑party consent authorization
  3. 3 Whether the interception constituted an unreasonable search under s.8 of the Charter

Ratio Decidendi

On a contextual review of the affidavit together with amplification, the affiant made full, fair and frank disclosure and the affidavit contained sufficient reliable evidence that might reasonably be believed to support issuance of the one‑party consent Authorization; therefore the Authorization was valid, the interception was lawful and there was no s.8 Charter breach.

Court Disposition

Authorization P. 37/2009 (one‑party consent) upheld; interception lawful; no s.8 Charter breach; evidence admissible at trial.

Orders

  • Interception evidence admitted for use at trial