R. v. Ali

R. v. Ali

The court granted leave to cross-examine the affiant, Sgt. Kim, but only on topics where there is a reasonable likelihood the evidence will assist the Garofoli review: (1) grounds to believe the police agent would produce evidence and the non-disclosure of contemporaneous adverse information about the agent; (2) the facts underlying the deponent's assertion that interception beyond a concurrent one-party consent authorization was necessary; (3) the status and representation of the police operational plan; and (4) the non-disclosure and lawfulness of live monitoring/interceptions and the factual basis for claimed lack of recording devices. The court denied leave to cross-examine on the...

Citation
2014 BCSC 724
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Aram Ali
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal (wiretap Authorization Challenge) / Pre Trial Application to Cross Examine Affiant on Wiretap Authorization (voir Dire)
Outcome
Application to cross-examine granted in part and denied in part.
Legal Topics
Wiretap Authorization (part VI Criminal Code), Garofoli Review, Investigative Necessity, Material Non Disclosure, Cross Examination of Affidavit Deponent, Lawfulness of Live Monitoring (s.184.1), Operational Plan and Agent Use
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Search and Seizure Surveillance Law Administrative/judicial Review of Warrants Wiretap Authorization (part VI Criminal Code) Garofoli Review Investigative Necessity +4 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 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Aram Ali

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal (wiretap Authorization Challenge) / Pre Trial Application to Cross Examine Affiant on Wiretap Authorization (voir Dire)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the affidavit provided reasonable and probable grounds under s.186(1)(a) to believe interceptions would produce evidence (Duarte)
  2. 2 Whether the affidavit established investigative necessity under s.186(1)(b)
  3. 3 Whether material non-disclosure or misrepresentation subverted the authorization process (Pickton-type challenge)

Ratio Decidendi

The court granted leave to cross-examine the affiant, Sgt. Kim, but only on topics where there is a reasonable likelihood the evidence will assist the Garofoli review: (1) grounds to believe the police agent would produce evidence and the non-disclosure of contemporaneous adverse information about the agent; (2) the facts underlying the deponent's assertion that interception beyond a concurrent one-party consent authorization was necessary; (3) the status and representation of the police operational plan; and (4) the non-disclosure and lawfulness of live monitoring/interceptions and the factual basis for claimed lack of recording devices. The court denied leave to cross-examine on the...

Court Disposition

Application to cross-examine granted in part and denied in part.

Orders

  • Leave granted to cross-examine Sgt. Michael Kim about the grounds to believe the police agent would produce evidence and about omission from the affidavit of information suggesting concerns about the agent's ability to perform (defence bases #4 and #6)
  • Leave granted to cross-examine about the facts that led the affiant to depose that interception more extensive than the existing one-party consent authorization was necessary (defence basis #5)