R. v. Aitken

R. v. Aitken

The reviewing judge found no deliberate or material non-disclosure by the affiants except for specified paragraphs concerning the alleged benefit to Poole from Neill not testifying which were expunged; there remained sufficient unimpugned evidence to satisfy s.186(1)(a) (reasonable and probable grounds) and s.186(1)(b) (investigative necessity) and therefore the wiretap authorizations were valid and the intercepted communications admissible (subject to editing).

Citation
2008 BCSC 621
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Daniel Christopher Miles Aitken
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Review of Wiretap Authorizations / Voir Dire / Admissibility Hearing (review of Authorizations and Affidavits)
Outcome
Application to quash authorizations dismissed; authorizations upheld and intercept evidence declared admissible subject to editing with limited expungements
Legal Topics
Wiretap Authorization, Informant Reliability, Material Non Disclosure, Investigative Necessity, Charter S.8 Search and Seizure, Section 24(2) Exclusion of Evidence, S.186 Criminal Code Requirements
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Law Procedural Law Wiretap Authorization Informant Reliability Material Non Disclosure 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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Daniel Christopher Miles Aitken

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Review of Wiretap Authorizations / Voir Dire / Admissibility Hearing (review of Authorizations and Affidavits)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the wiretap authorizations met the statutory requirements of s.186(1) of the Criminal Code
  2. 2 Whether the affiants made material non-disclosures or strategic omissions that would invalidate the authorizations
  3. 3 Whether the accused's s.8 Charter rights were breached and whether any breach required exclusion under s.24(2)

Ratio Decidendi

The reviewing judge found no deliberate or material non-disclosure by the affiants except for specified paragraphs concerning the alleged benefit to Poole from Neill not testifying which were expunged; there remained sufficient unimpugned evidence to satisfy s.186(1)(a) (reasonable and probable grounds) and s.186(1)(b) (investigative necessity) and therefore the wiretap authorizations were valid and the intercepted communications admissible (subject to editing).

Court Disposition

Application to quash authorizations dismissed; authorizations upheld and intercept evidence declared admissible subject to editing with limited expungements

Orders

  • Authorizations Nos. 1 through 7 upheld and not quashed
  • Certain references in the affidavits relating to perceived benefit to Poole from Neill not testifying expunged (paragraphs 7(H), 42(C) and 45(C) of Affidavit No.1) and minor corrections ordered (description of October 30 sworn statement and years in paragraphs 118 and 119)