Procedure - Pretrial hearings - Intervenors. General principles - Rights of accused - Right to discovery or production - Szczerba and Siemens were charged with drug offences - The federal Crown was prosecuting the charges - Siemens sought disclosure of wiretap evidence that was intercepted in an investigation of unrelated Criminal Code offences against Szczerba - The Calgary Police Service had the wiretap evidence - At issue was the procedure for determining disclosure of the evidence - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "where, as in this case, an accused seeks information pertaining to an investigation different than the investigation of the charge being tried in relation to someone other than the accused and that information is not in the possession or control of the Crown but is in the hands of a third party, even if that third party happens to be a police service, that information is prima facie governed by the procedure" - See paragraph 13. The court also held that the procedure to be followed for determining disclosure was that set out in R. The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench granted the Chief intervener status. The Chief of the Calgary Police Service applied to intervene. The Calgary Police Service had the wiretap evidence. Siemens sought disclosure of wiretap evidence that was intercepted in an investigation of unrelated Criminal Code offences against Szczerba. The federal Crown was prosecuting Szczerba and Siemens for charges of possession of cocaine for the purposes of trafficking. Kenneth Michael Szczerba (accused) and Lindsay Cameron Siemens (accused/applicant) and Jack Beaton, Chief of Police of the Calgary Police Service (intervener applicant/respondent) Her Majesty The Queen (Crown/respondent) v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |