R. v. Berry
- Citation
- 2019 BCSC 2427
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of British Columbia
- Decision
- 3 September 2019
- Posture
- Criminal / Media Application for Release of Documents During Trial
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of British Columbia
- Decision
- 3 September 2019
- Posture
- Criminal / Media Application for Release of Documents During Trial
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court granted the media application because the public interest in disclosure, coupled with the fact that the note's contents were already publicly known, outweighed the defence's concern about possible future inadmissibility.
Court disposition
Application granted
Orders
- Exhibit 159 (note written by the accused) produced to the media in accordance with the media request.
02
Material facts
Parties
Regina
Crown Counsel: P.A. Weir, C.M.F. JenningsAndrew Robert Douglas Berry
Accused Counsel: K.G. McCullough, B.S. Lynskey03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal / Media Application for Release of Documents During Trial
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether Exhibit 159 (note written by the accused) should be released to the media
- 02
Whether public interest outweighs defence concern that the note may be inadmissible in a future proceeding
- 03
Whether the note's contents are already public through evidence and coverage
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Media (and Crown) argued the note should be released because disclosure is in the public interest and the note's contents are already known through repeated references in evidence, gallery members and media coverage.
- Respondent
- Defence argued release should be refused because the note may be determined inadmissible in a future proceeding and its release could prejudice the accused.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Court policy and common law principle of open courts
Open court principle and public interest in access to exhibits
- 02
Court policy and common law fairness considerations
Protection of fair trial from prejudicial or inadmissible material may justify withholding exhibits
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court granted the media application because the public interest in disclosure, coupled with the fact that the note's contents were already publicly known, outweighed the defence's concern about possible future inadmissibility.
Obiter and limits
- The court reviewed its policy concerning release of exhibits.
- The defence concern about potential future inadmissibility was acknowledged but held not to be dispositive.
Court disposition
Application granted
- Exhibit 159 (note written by the accused) produced to the media in accordance with the media request.
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of British Columbia · 3 September 2019
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Judgment· 3 September 2019
2019 BCSC 2427 R. v. Berry
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Berry, 2019 BCSC 2427 Date: 20190903 Docket: 173304 Registry: Victoria Regina v. Andrew Robert Douglas Berry Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Gropper Oral Ruling on Media Application for Release of Documents Counsel for the Crown: P.A. Weir C.M.F. Jennings Counsel for the Accused: K.G. McCullough B.S. Lynskey Place and Date of Hearing: Vancouver, B.C. September 3, 2019 Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, B.C. September 3, 2019 [1] THE COURT: These are my reasons in respect of the media application for release of the note that Mr. Berry wrote, addressed to his sister, which has been entered into evidence as Exhibit 159. [2] I have heard from the parties and representatives of the media. I have reviewed the court's policy concerning release of documents, particularly exhibits, to the media, and I am satisfied that providing the exhibit to the media is in the public interest. I recognize the defence concern that the note may be determined to be inadmissible in some future proceeding, but its contents are known through repeated references in the evidence to the jury, to the members of the gallery, and by reference to it in its contents in media coverage. [3] I therefore grant the application that the note be produced in accordance with the media request. "Gropper J."
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.