R. v. Downey

R. v. Downey

The production order of August 29, 2012 was properly granted: the reviewing judge, after amplification, found the affiant's statements were reasonably held at the time, omissions were not materially misleading, the three confidential sources provided sufficient corroboration and reliability, and there were...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2017 NSSC 65
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant: Devon Marteeko Downey
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal (manslaughter) / Pre Trial Production Order Challenge (garofoli/section 8 Review)
Outcome
Application dismissed; production order upheld
Legal Topics
Production Order (s.487.012), Facial and Sub Facial Challenge, Confidential Informants, Reasonable Grounds Standard, Materiality and Full and Frank Disclosure, Cellular Records
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Charter Law Search and Seizure Evidence Production Order (s.487.012) Facial and Sub Facial Challenge Confidential Informants Reasonable Grounds Standard +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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Devon Marteeko Downey

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal (manslaughter) / Pre Trial Production Order Challenge (garofoli/section 8 Review)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the affiant knew or ought to have known of false, misleading or omitted material facts (sub-facial challenge)
  2. 2 Whether omissions were material to probable cause/investigative necessity
  3. 3 Proper standard for issuance of production orders under s.487.012(3) (reasonable grounds)

Ratio Decidendi

The production order of August 29, 2012 was properly granted: the reviewing judge, after amplification, found the affiant's statements were reasonably held at the time, omissions were not materially misleading, the three confidential sources provided sufficient corroboration and reliability, and there were reasonable grounds to believe the requested Telus records would afford evidence respecting the offence, so no excisions were required and the order stands.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; production order upheld

Orders

  • Production order of August 29, 2012 validated
  • No excisions ordered to Detective Cst. Anstey's affidavit