U.S.A. v. Hulley

U.S.A. v. Hulley

The court ordered committal under s.29(1)(a) because the certified record and supplemental record raised a plausible case against Hulley, the Ferras-presumption of reliability was not rebutted, a limited weighing showed sufficient corroboration of accomplice testimony (items in Hulley's home and the burned KIA) and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2007 BCSC 976
Parties
Requesting State: United States of America; Person Sought: Dwayne Gregory Lee Hulley
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Extradition / Committal Hearing Under S.29(1)(a)
Outcome
Committal ordered under s.29(1)(a) for both offences in the authority to proceed.
Legal Topics
Committal, Record of the Case, Threshold Reliability, Accomplice Evidence, Disclosure, Vetrovec Warning
Source Language
english
Extradition Criminal Law Charter Rights Committal Record of the Case Threshold Reliability Accomplice Evidence Disclosure +1 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

United States of America

Requesting State

Dwayne Gregory Lee Hulley

Person Sought

Procedural Posture

Extradition / Committal Hearing Under S.29(1)(a)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the admissible evidence in the record/supplemental record of the case establishes conduct that would justify committal for trial in Canada
  2. 2 Whether the certified record/supplemental record is manifestly unreliable under U.S.A. v. Ferras such that committal must be refused
  3. 3 Whether accomplice testimony (Hicks, Sanford) is sufficiently corroborated to meet threshold reliability

Ratio Decidendi

The court ordered committal under s.29(1)(a) because the certified record and supplemental record raised a plausible case against Hulley, the Ferras-presumption of reliability was not rebutted, a limited weighing showed sufficient corroboration of accomplice testimony (items in Hulley's home and the burned KIA) and therefore the threshold for committal was met; ultimate issues of credibility remain for trial.

Court Disposition

Committal ordered under s.29(1)(a) for both offences in the authority to proceed.

Orders

  • Person committed into custody to await surrender for both offences in the authority to proceed.
  • Judge informed person that surrender will not occur until after expiry of 30 days and that the person has a right to appeal the order and to apply for judicial interim release.