R. v. Giles

R. v. Giles

On a narrow review of the totality of the affidavits including prior authorizations the authorizing judge could reasonably find both reasonable and probable grounds under s.186(1)(a) and investigative necessity under s.186(1)(b) for P.91 as it related to Giles; therefore P.91 was valid and there was no s.8 Charter breach.

Citation
2007 BCSC 894
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: David Francis Giles; Accused: David Roger Revell; Accused: Richard Andrew Rempel
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Wiretap Authorization/voir Dire / Oral Ruling on Wiretap Voir Dire (validity of P.91)
Outcome
Authorization P.91 upheld as valid; no violation of s.8 Charter.
Legal Topics
Wiretap Authorization, S.186 Criminal Code, Investigative Necessity, Reasonable and Probable Grounds, S.8 Charter, Standard of Review on Warrant Challenge
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Charter (constitutional) Law Search and Seizure Wiretapping Criminal Organization Offences Wiretap Authorization S.186 Criminal Code Investigative Necessity +3 more

Case Brief

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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

David Francis Giles

Accused

David Roger Revell

Accused

Richard Andrew Rempel

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Wiretap Authorization/voir Dire / Oral Ruling on Wiretap Voir Dire (validity of P.91)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether affidavit established reasonable and probable grounds under s.186(1)(a) for authorizing interception of Giles's private communications
  2. 2 Whether investigative necessity under s.186(1)(b) was established as to Giles or the overall investigation
  3. 3 Whether interception violated s.8 Charter rights

Ratio Decidendi

On a narrow review of the totality of the affidavits including prior authorizations the authorizing judge could reasonably find both reasonable and probable grounds under s.186(1)(a) and investigative necessity under s.186(1)(b) for P.91 as it related to Giles; therefore P.91 was valid and there was no s.8 Charter breach.

Court Disposition

Authorization P.91 upheld as valid; no violation of s.8 Charter.

Orders

  • P.91 authorization upheld as valid
  • Ban on publication of the proceedings under the court's inherent jurisdiction (publication ban)