Special Constable Press

Five criminal appeals arising from a major gang investigation challenged informer-privilege procedures, wiretap authorizations, general warrants, covert searches, no-knock take-down warrants, a warrantless vehicle search, jury instructions, and expert opinion evidence.

The court held that an ex parte, in camera first-stage informer privilege hearing was proper, that Criminal Code ss. 186(1.1) and 487.01 were constitutionally valid, and that the wiretap authorizations and general warrants were lawfully issued and executed.

Although one warrantless vehicle search was conducted in an unreasonable manner and one aspect of the conspiracy jury charge was erroneous, the evidence was properly admitted under s. 24(2) and the charge error caused no substantial wrong.

All convictions were upheld and all appeals were dismissed.

The accused was tried before a judge alone on multiple drug and firearm offences arising from a large police investigation into organized drug trafficking.

The Crown relied heavily on intercepted private communications interpreted through expert testimony regarding drug and firearms terminology.

The accused admitted some drug possession but asserted that coded language referred to marihuana rather than cocaine and that references to firearms concerned a paintball gun.

The court rejected the accused’s explanations as implausible and inconsistent with the surrounding evidence, including expert interpretations, seizure evidence, and contextual communications.

The court concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused trafficked crack cocaine, attempted to obtain an illegal firearm, possessed a firearm, possessed cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and possessed proceeds of crime, but was not guilty of trafficking in marihuana.