R. v. Pritchard

R. v. Pritchard

The court held that s.184.2 permits authorization of participant interceptions where an involved party (including an undercover officer) freely consents and the authorization meets the statutory criteria; there is no requirement that the consenting party be independent of the state actor seeking authorization, and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2002 BCSC 470
Parties
Prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant: David Mostyn Pritchard
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 April 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal First Degree Murder / Voir Dire Under S.184.2 (pre Trial Admissibility)
Outcome
Defence application to exclude electronically recorded conversations dismissed; recordings admissible
Legal Topics
Interception of Communications, Participant Interception, Third Party Interception, Statutory Interpretation, Exclusion of Evidence, Undercover Operations
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Evidence Charter Law Search and Seizure Privacy Interception of Communications Participant Interception Third Party Interception +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Prosecution

David Mostyn Pritchard

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal First Degree Murder / Voir Dire Under S.184.2 (pre Trial Admissibility)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether consent under s.184.2 requires the consenting party to be independent of the state actor seeking authorization
  2. 2 Whether the authorization complied with s.184.2 of the Criminal Code
  3. 3 Whether the interception met Charter s.8 requirements and Code safeguards

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that s.184.2 permits authorization of participant interceptions where an involved party (including an undercover officer) freely consents and the authorization meets the statutory criteria; there is no requirement that the consenting party be independent of the state actor seeking authorization, and the authorization in this case satisfied both the Code and Charter s.8 standards, so the recorded communications were admissible.

Court Disposition

Defence application to exclude electronically recorded conversations dismissed; recordings admissible

Orders

  • Application to exclude evidence dismissed and recordings admitted as evidence
  • Publication ban: all evidence and submissions made when jury not present shall not be published or broadcast until the jury has rendered its verdict (order made pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the court)