R. v. Kampos

R. v. Kampos

The judge granted the order because the relevant statutory factors (witness's enduring physical and emotional injury, genuine safety concerns for the witness and family, seriousness of the offence, and the societal interest in encouraging reporting and witness participation) showed the screen would facilitate a full and candid account; the minimal prejudice to the accused did not outweigh these considerations, so testimony behind a screen was authorized under s.486.2(2).

Citation
2018 BCSC 1808
Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Accused: Peter Anthony Kampos
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal: Attempted Murder and Firearm Offences / Judge Alone Trial; Application for Witness Accommodation Under S.486.2(2) Criminal Code
Outcome
Application granted.
Legal Topics
Witness Accommodation, Testifying Behind a Screen, Confrontation Balancing, Victim Safety
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Victims' Rights Witness Accommodation Testifying Behind a Screen Confrontation Balancing Victim Safety

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Peter Anthony Kampos

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal: Attempted Murder and Firearm Offences / Judge Alone Trial; Application for Witness Accommodation Under S.486.2(2) Criminal Code

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to permit the complainant to testify from behind a screen under s.486.2(2) Criminal Code
  2. 2 Whether the order would facilitate a full and candid account and is in the interest of the proper administration of justice
  3. 3 Balancing accused's confrontation rights against witness safety and truth-seeking interests

Ratio Decidendi

The judge granted the order because the relevant statutory factors (witness's enduring physical and emotional injury, genuine safety concerns for the witness and family, seriousness of the offence, and the societal interest in encouraging reporting and witness participation) showed the screen would facilitate a full and candid account; the minimal prejudice to the accused did not outweigh these considerations, so testimony behind a screen was authorized under s.486.2(2).

Court Disposition

Application granted.

Orders

  • Order granted pursuant to s.486.2(2) Criminal Code permitting the witness Cameron Rose to testify from behind a screen.