The Crown brought a motion to remove defence counsel David Locke from representing the accused Narankar Dhillon on a first-degree murder charge at a preliminary hearing, alleging a conflict of interest based on Locke's prior professional relationships with three individuals: a Crown witness (Avtar Sidhu), a potential Crown witness (Manpreet Padda), and a co-accused (Charnjit Boughan).
The Crown argued that these prior relationships created a conflict that could undermine the fairness of the trial and public confidence in the administration of justice.
The accused opposed the motion, asserting his Charter right to counsel of choice and proposing that the conflict could be eliminated through an informed instruction to Locke not to cross-examine Sidhu or Padda.
The court dismissed the Crown's application, finding that the prior relationships were remote and that the accused's informed waiver of cross-examination eliminated any potential conflict.
