R. v. Cox

R. v. Cox

On the evidence the accused did not have a subjective expectation of privacy in the ransom telephone calls and any subjective expectation would not have been objectively reasonable given the accused's intent to involve third parties and their loss of control over who would hear the communications; therefore s.8 of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2018 BCSC 877
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Harinam Cox; Accused: Shamil Ali; Accused: Gopal Figueredo; Accused: Erlan Acosta; Accused: Ellwood Bradbury; Accused: Matthew Stewart
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Voir Dire (pre Trial Admissibility Hearing)
Outcome
Application challenging admissibility dismissed for lack of standing; s.8 Charter not engaged; intercepted communications are not private communications under s.183 Criminal Code on the material before the Court.
Legal Topics
Standing to Challenge Interceptions, Reasonable Expectation of Privacy, Criminal Code S.184.4 Emergency Interception, Application of R. V. Marakah and R. V. Jones, Voice Identification, Joint Venture Liability, Use of Burner Phones and Control Over Communications
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Charter Rights (s.8) Evidence Search and Seizure Interception of Communications Standing to Challenge Interceptions Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Criminal Code S.184.4 Emergency Interception +4 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 7 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Harinam Cox

Accused

Shamil Ali

Accused

Gopal Figueredo

Accused

Erlan Acosta

Accused

Ellwood Bradbury

Accused

Matthew Stewart

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Voir Dire (pre Trial Admissibility Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the accused have standing to raise a Charter s.8 challenge?
  2. 2 Were the intercepted telephone communications "private communications" under s.183 Criminal Code?
  3. 3 Did the accused have a subjective expectation of privacy?

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence the accused did not have a subjective expectation of privacy in the ransom telephone calls and any subjective expectation would not have been objectively reasonable given the accused's intent to involve third parties and their loss of control over who would hear the communications; therefore s.8 of the Charter was not engaged and the accused lacked standing to challenge the intercepted communications under s.184.4.

Court Disposition

Application challenging admissibility dismissed for lack of standing; s.8 Charter not engaged; intercepted communications are not private communications under s.183 Criminal Code on the material before the Court.

Orders

  • Voir dire application dismissed for lack of standing
  • Issues of voice identification and joint venture responsibility reserved for trial