Archive for Conspiracy

R v L O & C (2006)

This wiretap case was the largest drug trafficking prosecution in Calgary legal history up to that time. It was similar to the Edmonton case on which Mr Rice acted called R v C (2003) discussed below. There were fewer defendants in this case but the wiretap component and volume of investigative material was approximately the same. The prosecution bogged down when the Crown Attorney delayed providing disclosure to the defendants. After two years of court motions, Mr Rice brought an application for a stay of proceedings asserting that the state had violated his client’s right to a trial within a reasonable time under ss 11(b) and 24(1) of the Charter of Rights. The trial judge never got to rule on the application. The Crown Attorney stayed the charges.

R v C (2003)

This Edmonton case was the largest prosecution in Alberta legal history up to that time. It began on September 24, 1999, and was continuously before the courts until the trial judge granted the defendants’ motion for a stay of proceedings on September 8, 2003. A special courtroom was constructed in the Law Courts Building to accommodate the trial. The case involved two parallel trials, over 400 police officers, multiple wiretap authorizations and search warrants, and approximately 189,000 pages of documents. The third Information in the Provincial Court of Alberta had charged 37 defendants with 41 offences. The case became notorious when it began to collapse during two years of pretrial disclosure and privilege motions. The trial judge called it a “new species” when she stayed all charges for breach of the defendants’ right to be trial within a reasonable time under ss 11(b) and 24(1) of the Charter of Rights.

R v L (1995)

The defendants in this case were charged with conspiracy and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. The case went directly to trial in the Provincial Court of Alberta on the election of the defendants. Early in the trial the Crown Attorney objected to the disclosure of certain information on the grounds of a specified public interest under s 37 of the Canada Evidence Act. Mr Rice objected on the basis that the Crown Attorney was in the wrong court to assert the privilege. The proper court was the Federal Court under s 37(3)(a) of the statute. The trial judge in the Provincial Court adjourned the trial. The next move by the Crown Attorney was to bring the certification of the specified public interest before the Court of Queen’s Bench. Mr Rice objected again and Chief Justice W K Moore said that he had reservations whether the Crown Attorney had brought the application in the right court. Faced with the prospect of conducting a long and delayed application on the crowded docket of the Federal Court, the Crown Attorney withdrew the charges.

R v D D & N (1993)

This case began when a chambermaid found a package wrapped in brown paper in an Edmonton hotel room. She tore the top of the package open and saw a white substance inside. She thought it was Christmas cake and left the package in a utility room. Another hotel employee found it and thought it might be drugs. He called the police. The most recent guest in the room had checked out before the chambermaid found the package. The police set up surveillance to see if anyone would return to claim it. The investigation led to Mr Rice’s client and a group of friends who were all charged with conspiracy and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. The prosecution attempted to establish a case of joint possession or constructive possession. After a lengthy preliminary inquiry the Crown Attorney realized that there was no reasonable likelihood of a conviction and withdrew all charges.

Page 3of 3: 1 2 3