R. v. Sanghera

R. v. Sanghera

After excisions and consideration of amplification evidence, the authorizing judge could have validly granted Authorization P4/2009 because the affidavit supplied reasonable and probable grounds and met the investigative necessity requirement; drafting errors and omissions were largely inadvertent and not materially misleading; however clause 5.6 (authorization to intercept the cellular telephone attributed to Rangi based on jail-seized phone numbers) lacked supporting grounds after excisions and must be struck, leaving the rest of Authorization P4/2009 valid.

Citation
2012 BCSC 1197
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Boby a.k.a. Bobby Barjinder Singh Sanghera; Accused: Navdip Singh Sanghera; Accused: Charanjit Singh Rangi; Accused: Savdip Singh Sanghera; Accused: Jaspreet Singh Virk
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Wiretap Authorization Review / Authorization Review (voir Dire)
Outcome
Authorization P4/2009 upheld in large part; clause 5.6 struck
Legal Topics
Wiretap Authorization, Investigative Necessity, Reasonable and Probable Grounds, Confidential Informants, Police Agent Reliability, Amplification and Excision of Affidavit, Abuse of Process, Criminal Code S.186
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Search and Seizure Charter of Rights (s.10) Electronic Surveillance/wiretapping Wiretap Authorization Investigative Necessity Reasonable and Probable Grounds +5 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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Boby a.k.a. Bobby Barjinder Singh Sanghera

Accused

Navdip Singh Sanghera

Accused

Charanjit Singh Rangi

Accused

Savdip Singh Sanghera

Accused

Jaspreet Singh Virk

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Wiretap Authorization Review / Authorization Review (voir Dire)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether further excisions should be made from the affidavit
  2. 2 Whether affidavit (after excisions and amplification) provided reasonable and probable grounds that offences had been, were being, or would be committed and that interception would afford evidence
  3. 3 Whether the investigative necessity requirement under s.186(1)(b) was met

Ratio Decidendi

After excisions and consideration of amplification evidence, the authorizing judge could have validly granted Authorization P4/2009 because the affidavit supplied reasonable and probable grounds and met the investigative necessity requirement; drafting errors and omissions were largely inadvertent and not materially misleading; however clause 5.6 (authorization to intercept the cellular telephone attributed to Rangi based on jail-seized phone numbers) lacked supporting grounds after excisions and must be struck, leaving the rest of Authorization P4/2009 valid.

Court Disposition

Authorization P4/2009 upheld in large part; clause 5.6 struck

Orders

  • Clause 5.6 of Authorization P4/2009 struck (authorization to intercept the cellular telephone attributed to Charanjit Singh Rangi)
  • Authorization P4/2009 otherwise remains valid