Blog

Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora

R v C & B (2010)

  • Clayton Rice, Q.C.

In this conspiracy to commit murder case, Mr Rice acted for B who was alleged to be the trigger man in retribution for the previous shooting of C on the sidewalk outside an Edmonton restaurant. The police obtained a wiretap authorization to intercept the telephone calls of C. B was caught on the wire. During the preliminary inquiry, one of the detectives conceded under cross examination by Mr Rice that the Edmonton Police Service had extensive records about B and his association with C. It became clear that B ought to have been named as a known person in the wiretap authorization under s 185(1)(e) of the Criminal Code as the interception of his private communications would have assisted the investigation. Faced with a flawed case, the Crown Attorney offered a sweetheart deal whereby B pleaded guilty to a firearm offence, was sentenced to time in custody and immediately released from pretrial detention. All other charges were withdrawn.

Comments are closed.