R. v. Ali

R. v. Ali

The court granted limited leave to cross‑examine Sgt. Kim only on why he omitted mention of the police‑issued BlackBerry from his affidavit because the omission could bear on the validity of the authorization; the court denied leave to cross‑examine on whether the omission misled the authorizing justice or whether the agent's telephone was intercepted because Crown established, on the record, that the telephone was not subject to JSI or BES monitoring and proposed topic (b) had no factual basis.

Citation
2014 BCSC 1876
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Aram Ali
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 September 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Wiretap Authorization Challenge / Application to Expand Scope of Cross Examination on Affidavit Supporting Wiretap Authorization
Outcome
Leave granted in a limited scope to cross‑examine Sgt. Kim on why he omitted the police‑issued telephone from his affidavit; leave denied to cross‑examine on whether the omission misled the authorizing justice and denied on proposed topic that the agent's telephone was intercepted because there was no basis.
Legal Topics
Wiretap Authorization, Cross Examination, Disclosure Obligations, Agent Communications, Black Berry Enterprise Server (bes), JSI Interception
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Procedure Search and Seizure Interception of Communications Wiretap Authorization Cross Examination Disclosure Obligations +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Aram Ali

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Wiretap Authorization Challenge / Application to Expand Scope of Cross Examination on Affidavit Supporting Wiretap Authorization

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to cross-examine Sgt. Kim about a police‑issued telephone not mentioned in his affidavit
  2. 2 Whether omission of the telephone misled the authorizing justice and could vitiate Wiretap Authorization P3/2009
  3. 3 Whether the agent's communications on that telephone were intercepted

Ratio Decidendi

The court granted limited leave to cross‑examine Sgt. Kim only on why he omitted mention of the police‑issued BlackBerry from his affidavit because the omission could bear on the validity of the authorization; the court denied leave to cross‑examine on whether the omission misled the authorizing justice or whether the agent's telephone was intercepted because Crown established, on the record, that the telephone was not subject to JSI or BES monitoring and proposed topic (b) had no factual basis.

Court Disposition

Leave granted in a limited scope to cross‑examine Sgt. Kim on why he omitted the police‑issued telephone from his affidavit; leave denied to cross‑examine on whether the omission misled the authorizing justice and denied on proposed topic that the agent's telephone was intercepted because there was no basis.

Orders

  • Leave granted to cross‑examine Sgt. Michael Kim limited to the specific question why he made no mention in his affidavit of the police‑issued BlackBerry
  • Leave denied for cross‑examination on whether the authorizing justice was intentionally misled by the omission and for cross‑examination on whether the agent's telephone was intercepted