R. v. McDonald

R. v. McDonald

On review the affidavit and operational plan provided sufficient circumstantial and operational detail to permit a reasonable authorizing judge to find both that interception of the accused's communications with undercover officers would likely produce evidence and that interception of communications with third...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2013 BCSC 2072
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Thomas Anthony McDonald
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Homicide (first Degree Murder) / Pre Trial Judicial Review/voir Dire on Admissibility of Intercepted Communications and Validity of Part VI Authorizations
Outcome
Application dismissed; challenge to the validity of authorizations P15/2011 denied
Legal Topics
Wiretap Authorization, One Party Consent, Third Party Authorization, Investigative Necessity, Reasonable Grounds, Undercover Operations, Mr. Big Operation, Garofoli Review
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Evidence Privacy Search and Seizure Procedural Law Wiretap Authorization One Party Consent Third Party Authorization +5 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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Thomas Anthony McDonald

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Homicide (first Degree Murder) / Pre Trial Judicial Review/voir Dire on Admissibility of Intercepted Communications and Validity of Part VI Authorizations

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.184.2(3)(c) reasonable grounds were established for a one-party consent interception
  2. 2 Whether s.186(1) investigative necessity and best interests requirement were established for a third-party interception
  3. 3 Whether the supporting affidavit supplied reliable, non-misleading circumstantial evidence

Ratio Decidendi

On review the affidavit and operational plan provided sufficient circumstantial and operational detail to permit a reasonable authorizing judge to find both that interception of the accused's communications with undercover officers would likely produce evidence and that interception of communications with third parties (including his brother) was practically necessary to obtain corroboration and achieve investigative objectives; the challenge to the facial and sub-facial validity of both authorizations is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; challenge to the validity of authorizations P15/2011 denied

Orders

  • Challenge to facial and sub-facial validity of one-party and third-party authorizations dismissed and authorizations upheld