R. v. Jageshur (R.), (2002) 165 O.A.C. 230 (CA)

• Judge: Doherty, Simmons and Armstrong, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: August 23, 2002
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2002), 165 O.A.C. 230 (CA)

R. v. Jageshur (R.) (2002), 165 O.A.C. 230 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] O.A.C. TBEd. OC.068

Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Ramkishore Jageshur (respondent)

(C35383)

Indexed As: R. v. Jageshur (R.)

Ontario Court of Appeal

Doherty, Simmons and Armstrong, JJ.A.

October 31, 2002.

Summary:

Jageshur, a drug dealer, purchased 18 kilograms of cocaine from undercover police officers in a "reverse sting" operation. The trial judge held that the reverse sting was unlawful and constituted trafficking in a narcotic by the police. He further held that the police conduct amounted to an abuse of process and excluded all the evidence obtained via the operation. Jageshur was acquitted. The Crown appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

Civil Rights - Topic 3157.4

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Abuse of process - Jageshur purchased 18 kilograms of cocaine from undercover police officers in a "reverse sting" operation - The trial judge held that the reverse sting was unlawful and constituted trafficking in a narcotic by the police - He further held that the police conduct amounted to an abuse of process and excluded all the evidence obtained via the operation - Jageshur was acquitted - The Crown appealed - Jageshur argued that the offer to sell was illegal because it was made in the face of a refusal by RCMP Headquarters to authorize the reverse sting - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the offer and sale were exempt from the prohibition against trafficking in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and were not illegal - The trial judge's finding of an abuse of process therefore could not stand - The court ordered a new trial.

Criminal Law - Topic 253

Abuse of process - What constitutes - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3157.4 ].

Crown - Topic 2846

Crown immunity - Agents - Police - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3157.4 ].

Narcotic Control - Topic 700

Offences - Trafficking - General - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3157.4 ].

Police - Topic 3116

Powers - Investigation - Illegal police activity - What constitutes - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3157.4 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Campbell (J.) and Shirose (S.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 565; 237 N.R. 86; 119 O.A.C. 201; 133 C.C.C.(3d) 257; 24 C.R.(5th) 365, affing. (1997), 96 O.A.C. 372; 115 C.C.C.(3d) 310 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Mack, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 903; 90 N.R. 173; 44 C.C.C.(3d) 513, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. O'Connor (H.P.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411; 191 N.R. 1; 68 B.C.A.C. 1; 112 W.A.C. 1; [1996] 2 W.W.R. 153; 103 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 44 C.R.(4th) 1; 29 W.C.B.(2d) 152, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Regan (G.A.) (2002), 282 N.R. 1; 201 N.S.R.(2d) 63; 629 A.P.R. 63; 161 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Moreau, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 261; 23 N.R. 541; 42 C.C.C.(2d) 525, refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Bebbington; R. v. Dufour (1988), 28 O.A.C. 288; 43 C.C.C.(3d) 456 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

Gauthier v. Lac Brôme (Ville), [1998] 2 S.C.R. 3; 228 N.R. 5, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Dallas, 2002 BCSC 760 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 53].

Wool v. Canada, [1981] F.C.J. No. 506 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Sussex (Chief Constable); Ex parte International Trader's Ferry Ltd., [1999] 1 All E.R. 129; 235 N.R. 101 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. White (J.K.) (1999), 240 N.R. 1; 123 B.C.A.C. 161; 201 W.A.C. 161; 135 C.C.C.(3d) 257 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 67].

R. v. Harrer (H.M.), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 562; 186 N.R. 329; 64 B.C.A.C. 161; 105 W.A.C. 161; 101 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 128 D.L.R.(4th) 98, refd to. [para. 67].

R. v. Xenos (J.) (1991), 43 Q.A.C. 212; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 362 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 68].

Statutes Noticed:

Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (Police Enforcement) Regulations - see Controlled Drugs and Substances Act Regulations (Can.).

Controlled Drugs and Substances Act Regulations (Can.), Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (Police Enforcement) Regulations, SOR/97-234, sect. 8, sect. 15 [para. 9].

Counsel:

Beverly Wilton, for the appellant;

E. Bruce Olmsted, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on August 23, 2002, by Doherty, Simmons and Armstrong, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. Doherty, J.A., released the following decision for the court on October 31, 2002.