R. v. Mapara, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 358, 2005 SCC 23, 2005 SCC 23 (2005)

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

Citation: R. v. Mapara, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 358, 2005 SCC 23

Date: 20050427

Docket: 29750

Between:

Sameer Mapara

Appellant v.

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent

- and -

Attorney General of Canada and Attorney General of Ontario

Interveners

Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Fish, Abella and Charron JJ.

Reasons for Judgment:

(paras. 1 to 42)

Concurring reasons:

(paras. 43 to 64)

McLachlin C.J. (Bastarache, Binnie, Abella and Charron JJ. concurring)

LeBel J. (Fish J. concurring)

______________________________

R. v. Mapara, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 358, 2005 SCC 23

Sameer Mapara Appellant v.

Her Majesty The Queen Respondent and

Attorney General of Canada and Attorney General of Ontario Interveners

Indexed as: R. v. Mapara

Neutral citation: 2005 SCC 23.

File No.: 29750.

2004: December 16; 2005: April 27.

Present: McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Fish, Abella and Charron JJ.

on appeal from the court of appeal for british columbia

Criminal law - Evidence - Admissibility - Hearsay - Co-conspirator's exception - Double hearsay - Whether co-conspirator's exception to hearsay rule meets requirements of principled approach to hearsay - Whether double hearsay evidence of co-conspirator lacked necessity or reliability in circumstances of this case and ought to have been excluded.

Criminal law - Evidence - Admissibility - Interception of communications - Three-way communication - Named person in wiretap authorization initiating phone call with third party - Named person and accused alternately speaking with third party during call - Authorization requiring police to stop listening when named person not party to communication - Whether intercepts of telephone conversation between accused and third party should have been excluded - Whether named person still party to communication.

The accused and his co-conspirators, including B, W and C, were charged with first degree murder. The victim was shot to death in the accused's car lot. The Crown alleged that the accused's part in the conspiracy was to lure the victim to the lot. At the accused's trial, B testified that prior to the murder, W had told him that the accused had a job for them. The Crown's evidence also included an intercepted phone call between W and C, a target named in the wiretap authorization. During the call, C and the accused spoke alternately with W. At the same time, the accused received a call on his own phone from the victim and the accused's side of the conversation was picked up by the wiretap. He told the victim to meet him at the lot in 15 minutes and then informed W about this arrangement. Although the au...

If you are already a vLex customer, Access Here