R. v. McKinnon

R. v. McKinnon

After excising and correcting identified errors and omissions and amplifying the record where appropriate, the totality of the evidence (surveillance, corroborated informant B, production orders and operational plan) furnished sufficient reasonable and probable grounds that a conspiracy to commit break and enters...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2013 BCSC 2212
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Troy Dax McKinnon; Accused: John Ross Powers; Accused: Cody Alexander Sleigh; Accused: Derek James Stephens; Accused: Van Van Vu
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Charter Challenge to Part VI Wiretap Authorization / Voir Dire / Review of Wiretap Authorization (ruling on Voir Dire #4)
Outcome
Application dismissed; Authorization P.14/2011 upheld.
Legal Topics
Wiretap Authorization, Investigative Necessity, Reasonable and Probable Grounds, Full and Frank Disclosure, Naming Known Persons, Garofoli/araujo Amplification Review
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Procedural Law Privacy Law Wiretap Authorization Investigative Necessity Reasonable and Probable Grounds +3 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 34 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Troy Dax McKinnon

Accused

John Ross Powers

Accused

Cody Alexander Sleigh

Accused

Derek James Stephens

Accused

Van Van Vu

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Charter Challenge to Part VI Wiretap Authorization / Voir Dire / Review of Wiretap Authorization (ruling on Voir Dire #4)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the supporting affidavit met the statutory requirements of ss.185 and 186 of the Criminal Code for conspiracy to commit break and enter
  2. 2 Whether the affiant had reasonable and probable grounds to believe a conspiracy existed
  3. 3 Whether investigative necessity was established

Ratio Decidendi

After excising and correcting identified errors and omissions and amplifying the record where appropriate, the totality of the evidence (surveillance, corroborated informant B, production orders and operational plan) furnished sufficient reasonable and probable grounds that a conspiracy to commit break and enters existed and that interception was investigatively necessary; the affiant's drafting errors were careless not deliberately misleading and did not subvert the prior authorization process, and Powers was properly named as a principal known person; therefore Authorization P.14/2011 was valid and the application to set it aside was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; Authorization P.14/2011 upheld.

Orders

  • Dismissal of application challenging wiretap authorization P.14/2011
  • Excise from the affidavit the information listed in Appendix A: para.62(b); para.164 (Informant A); para.154 (Informant C); portion of para.200 ("about the break and enter they were arrested for"); portion of para.206 ("as those involved in the offences appear to be a closely-knit group and have spent time in jail...