Canada Judgment

Supreme Court of British Columbia

R. v. Berry

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

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. Jennings

Andrew Robert Douglas Berry

Accused Counsel: K.G. McCullough, B.S. Lynskey

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal / Media Application for Release of Documents During Trial

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

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

  1. 01

    Court policy and common law principle of open courts

    Open court principle and public interest in access to exhibits

  2. 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.

Source document

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Judgment· 3 September 2019

2019 BCSC 2427

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."

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

No structured authorities are available for this judgment.

Refer to the full judgment and official source for citations that have not yet been extracted.

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.