R. v. Joseph Date:, 2011 BCPC 147

Citation: R. v. Joseph Date: 20110620 2011 BCPC 0147 File No: 82781 - 1 Registry: Port Coquitlam IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA HOLDEN AT PORT COQUITLAM REGINA v. NIGEL XAVIER JOSEPH RULING ON VOIR DIRE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE POTHECARY Counsel for the Crown: K. MacWilliam Counsel for the Defendant: J. Dunne Place of Hearing: Port Coquitlam, B.C. Dates of Hearing: January 18, February 11 and May 26, 2011 Date of Judgment: June 20, 2011 [ 1 ] Nigel Joseph is charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking on December 14, 2009, in Coquitlam.

Cst Evan Todd is the only Crown witness heard from to date as my ruling on this voir dire will likely be determinative of the charge. Mr. Joseph also testified on the voir dire. In the event that I find the drugs seized from Mr. Joseph’s car to be admissible in evidence, the only remaining witness will be an expert to testify regarding the purpose of the possession. If I exclude the evidence regarding these drugs, that will be the end of the matter. [ 2 ] Counsel for Mr. Joseph argues that his rights pursuant to both sections 8 and 9 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms were breached in that Mr.

Joseph was arbitrarily detained and was unlawfully searched. He further submits that, pursuant to Section 24(2), the physical evidence located during the search should not be admitted into evidence. The burden of proof with regard to the alleged breaches rests with the Defendant on a balance of probabilities. The evidence relied upon by the defence in support of these submissions came through the cross-examination of Cst. Todd and his testimony during the voir dire as well as the evidence of Mr. Joseph. [ 3 ] Over the objection of Crown Counsel, I ruled that Defence Counsel could cross-examine Cst.

Todd with regard to a series of previous encounters he had had with Mr. Joseph and the PRIME reports that he had prepared following those encounters. I further ruled that this evidence could be used both to evaluate the credibility of Cst. Todd as well as to apply it to the factors enunciated in R. v. Grant in the event that I found that there were, in fact, Charter breaches. Circumstances: [ 4 ] The circumstances arose from a traffic stop at about 1:30 p.m. at the intersection of Brunette Avenue and Woolridge Street in Coquitlam, BC.

Brunette is a major through street; access from Woolridge is controlled by a stop sign at the top of a hill. As Cst. Todd drove past that intersection on Brunette, he observed a brown Pathfinder vehicle crest the hill on Woolridge and drive a little more than half way across the stop line adjacent to the stop sign before coming to a halt. This position is confirmed by photos taken by Cst. Todd

at the scene. [ 5 ] Cst. Todd immediately performed a U-turn on Brunette, activating his emergency equipment, and pulled up “nose-to-nose” with the Pathfinder which had not moved from its stopped position. His stated intention was to perform a traffic stop in light of the infraction he had just witnessed. He said that once he had turned around and pulled up to the vehicle, he had a clear view of the driver who was also looking at him.

He described that the driver “grabbed for something in the centre console…made like a pulling motion, and he brought a plastic wrap to his mouth and started swallowing something….He then grabbed a water bottle from the centre console and he had the water bottle up to his mouth and he was desperately drinking water and trying to swallow what he had in his mouth.” [ 6 ] He continued that although he could not see what was swallowed he could see the “outside Saran”. He also testified that he did not recognize the vehicle, although he acknowledged that Mr. Joseph may have been checked in it once before.

In addition he did not know who the driver was until he was facing him in his car, nose to nose, and they had made eye contact. He said he immediately left his vehicle as he believed, based on his experience, that the driver was swallowing crack cocaine. He also testified that the driver was drinking water rapidly from a water bottle as he, Cst. Todd, approached the driver’s door on foot. He said he attempted to open the driver’s door but it was locked and was unlocked by the driver only after he had put down the water bottle back into the console and swallowed. Once the door was unlocked, Cst.

Todd testified that he opened the door and removed the driver, Mr. Joseph, from the car. He checked Mr. Joseph’s mouth and found no drugs, then placed him under arrest for possession of a controlled substance, “because [he] believed he had swallowed drugs.” Cst. Todd then chartered and warned him from memory. [ 7 ] As he removed Mr. Joseph from the car, Cst. Todd observed a plastic baggie containing eight rocks of what later analysed as crack cocaine on the floor to the left of the driver’s seat, between the seat and the driver’s door.

This baggie was plainly visible once the driver’s door was opened but not before. Upon seeing those drugs and having seen the water bottle as well as hearing one or more cell phones ringing, he then advised Mr. Joseph that he was under arrest for possession for the purpose of trafficking. He handcuffed Mr. Joseph and, after a pat-down search, placed him in his police vehicle. During that search he located two cell phones and a wallet with currency in it on Mr. Joseph’s person. [ 8 ] In searching the car at the scene following the arrest, Cst.

Todd also located a third cell phone in a “man purse” containing identification in the name of Derek Foote, an associate of Mr. Joseph. He observed one empty baggie near the console and a water bottle, as well as a crack pipe under the front passenger seat. Mr. Joseph was transported to the police detachment where he spoke with counsel. While at the detachment, Cst. Todd answered some of the calls that came in on one of the cell phones that had been in Mr. Joseph’s pockets, and received what he believed to be a number of orders for drug deliveries, consistent with a dial-a-dope operation.

No further drugs and no weapons were found in the pat-down search or the vehicle search, or during a strip search at the detachment. [ 9 ] A vehicle registration document was filed showing Mr. Joseph as the registered owner of a gray 1995 Pathfinder with the same licence number, effective October 31, 2009, and continuing on December 14, 2009. [ 10 ] Cst. Todd testified that he had first encountered Mr. Joseph on August 13, 2008 during a drug investigation. Charges were requested but apparently not approved by Crown Counsel. Over the next 16 months, there were 22 separate dealings with Mr.

Joseph by the police including eleven by Cst. Todd personally, resulting in only this charge on December 14 th . These encounters were recorded by means of PRIME entries. [ 11 ] Cst. Todd was cross-examined extensively both as to the events and his observations of December 14 th as well as to a number of the earlier contacts he had had with Mr. Joseph beginning in July 2009, as recorded in those PRIME entries made by Cst. Todd. [ 12 ] Cst.

Todd testified that he stopped the Pathfinder on December 14 th by blocking it from the front at about a 45 degree angle, in order to write the driver a traffic ticket for failing to stop as required in the Motor Vehicle Act . He disagreed with the suggestion that the Pathfinder was not blocking traffic on Brunette, saying it was, “…a little into the number 1 lane”.

But it seems evident that the police car, stopping as it did, must have substantially blocked that lane. [ 13 ] When questioned about the events of December 14 th , he admitted that he wrote nothing in his notebook about seeing either plastic or a water bottle in Mr. Joseph’s hands, testifying that he had noted only that Mr. Joseph “was swallowing product believed to be crack cocaine.” Similarly, in the Report to Crown Counsel [RCC] prepared on the following day, he only noted, “Cst.

Todd observed Joseph bring a substance to his mouth, attempting to swallow the items quickly.” He conceded that his first mention of either the plastic or the water bottle was that day in court. [ 14 ] When questioned more precisely, he agreed that his notes said, “Noted Joseph driving, swallowing product believed to be crack. Arrested for possession. Pulled Joseph from vehicle. Noted small bag of crack on floor under seat of driver vehicle. Searched the vehicle.” [ 15 ] Notwithstanding the complete absence of notations both in his notes and RCC supporting his testimony of seeing plastic in Mr.

Joseph’s hand when raised to his mouth and his drinking quickly from a water bottle, Cst. Todd remained firm that those were indeed his observations. [ 16 ] He was also questioned about how Mr. Joseph apparently came to unlock the car door (which was also not mentioned in his notes or RCC), and how he, “…[attempted] to stop him from destroying evidence” which was in his RCC. Although acknowledging this latter note, he denied placing his hand or forearm on Mr. Joseph’s throat to prevent him from swallowing and testified that in fact there was no “attempt” as the product had already been swallowed. [ 17 ] Mr.

Joseph testified on the voir dire. He has no criminal record. He stated that he had been stopped approximately ten times by Cst. Todd while either driving or as a passenger in a vehicle. Each time that he was stopped, he was searched and the vehicle was searched. He testified that when he saw Cst. Todd drive by he knew he would be stopped and searched so he hid a crack pipe under the driver’s seat. He said that Mr. Foote had been using the vehicle previously and that he had taken it just for a brief trip to his home nearby to get a change of clothes.

He admitted trying to turn off a cell phone and putting it in his pocket before Cst. Todd located it, and

said that it was Mr. Foote’s. He believed that if he did not turn off the phone, that Cst. Todd would answer any calls that it received as that had happened before. He denied bringing anything to his mouth and swallowing, and denied drinking from the water bottle. He acknowledged that had he been aware of drugs in the car, he would probably have swallowed them, but that he did not know they were there. He testified that the vehicle door was never locked, and that Cst. Todd opened it, then put his forearm on Mr. Joseph’s neck, asked him to open his mouth which he did, and pulled him out of the car.

He also stated that he did not notice the bag of crack cocaine just inside the driver’s door when he entered the vehicle and denied that it was his. [ 18 ] In cross-examination, he acknowledged knowing that Mr. Foote sold drugs and admitted that he sometimes was present when this was happening. He was aware that Mr. Foote had left some items in the car, such as the cell phone, but did not expect that he would leave any drugs there. The PRIME Reports: [ 19 ] To contrast the notes and RCC relating to December 14 th , Counsel for Mr. Joseph reviewed a number of PRIME entries that were prepared by Cst.

Todd regarding Mr. Joseph, prior to December 14 th . Cst. Todd agreed that PRIME entries were prepared as intelligence reports to assist other police officers in knowing with whom they were dealing, their associates, and perhaps their activities. They are also a means to provide cautionary notes to other police officers in the event, for example, that the subject is someone known to carry weapons. Accordingly, he agreed that it is important that the information contained therein be accurate. [ 20 ] The first PRIME entry reviewed related to July 2, 2009, when a vehicle driven by Mr. Foote with Mr.

Joseph as passenger was the subject of a traffic stop. It should be noted that although these reports typically refer to “members”, in fact that usually referred to only Cst. Todd. He reported that, “…members noticed the driver of the vehicle bring something to his mouth and begin to drink water but could not detect whether drugs were being swallowed.” Both the driver and the area around the driver’s seat were searched, and, “nothing of interest was observed.” Cst. Todd readily admitted that he also searched the passenger, Mr. Joseph, who was carrying $200 in cash but “nothing else of interest”.

No mention was made of consent for the search or of a reason for the traffic stop. No arrests were made and no tickets were issued. [ 21 ] The next PRIME report arose two days later on July 4, 2009. In this case, Cst. Todd initiated a traffic stop because he recognized Mr. Joseph as the driver. He noted that, “Members observed Joseph bring something to his mouth and make a swallowing motion but were unable to tell exactly what the item was.” After obtaining Mr. Joseph’s oral consent to search, he located a cell phone from under the driver’s side floor mat, as well as a water bottle in the centre console.

He had $65 with him. Again no reason for the traffic stop was given. [ 22 ] He agreed when questioned that on each occasion when he had stopped Mr. Joseph and searched him, he had never found a weapon on his person or in his vehicle. In addition, although a knife was found in his car on one occasion, he was not present and the car was being driven by someone else. Notwithstanding that these were characterized as “traffic stops”, he never issued a ticket to Mr. Joseph. [ 23 ] The PRIME reports seem to disclose a pattern of building “known” information about Mr.

Joseph, notwithstanding that there are some significant misstatements included in the reports. This then became a “well-documented PRIME history”, according to at least one such report, notwithstanding overstatement or erroneous remarks. An example of this is in a report arising in approximately September 2009 (the date was not specifically given) wherein Cst.

Todd wrote, “Members requested Joseph to exit the vehicle as they are aware that dial a dope operator[s] including Joseph and Foote carry improvised weapons as well as knives, bear spray and baseball bats.” This was used as justification for requiring the sole occupant of the vehicle, Mr. Joseph, to leave the vehicle so that both he and the vehicle could be searched. An aerosol container was seen in the vehicle as Mr. Joseph got out, and he was then arrested, chartered and warned for possession of a weapon on the belief that this was bear spray.

Only after completing the searches did the constable actually look at the container – to find it was in fact a bottle of cologne. Having discovered his error only after completing the search, he then apologized to Mr. Joseph for the wrongful arrest and released him. [ 24 ] This event then was seemingly brought forward to another PRIME Report, this one dated November 4, 2009, wherein Cst. Todd described stopping a vehicle driven by Mr. Foote with Mr. Joseph as passenger.

In that report he states, “Members searched the vehicle and occupants for officer safety as both individuals [emphasis mine] are known to carry weapons such as bear spray and knives”. [ 25 ] The constable admitted in cross-examination that at no time whatsoever had he ever in fact found Mr. Joseph with weapons or been aware of any other police officer finding him with weapons. Notwithstanding that absence of foundation, he authored the PRIME reports that stated that Mr. Joseph had been found carrying or was known to carry weapons. Those statements were clearly wrong.

In addition, the casualness with which he arrested Mr. Joseph without even checking the so-called “weapon” suggests the real motivation of this constable during his dealings with Mr. Joseph. [ 26 ] In addition Cst. Todd created reports describing both Mr. Joseph and Mr. Foote as well known dial-a-dopers, even though Mr. Joseph certainly had never been charged in that regard. The reports also included details of the encounters by Cst. Todd where swallowing by Mr. Joseph or Mr. Foote was apparently observed.

However they typically included information such as: bringing a water bottle to the mouth, chugging water from a water bottle, or drinking from a water bottle. Nothing to that effect was ever put in writing by Cst. Todd regarding the encounter that is the subject of this charge. [ 27 ] Other observations typically mentioned in these reports in substantiation of some of the conclusions contained in the reports included the presence of a water bottle on the centre console of the car and sometimes mention of a quantity of change on the console.

Certainly water bottles seem to be ubiquitous nowadays, and not solely in the cars of drug dealers. In addition, change or coins are notoriously at hand for parking meters and other similarly innocuous purposes. While those observations, taken in conjunction with some swallowing, may suggest drug trafficking, no drugs, regurgitated or otherwise, have ever been located other than in this particular case, after removing Mr. Joseph from his vehicle. Analysis:

[28] In reviewing the evidence of the incident on December 14, 2009, it is clear that Cst. Todd was not simply making another routinetraffic stop. He testified in direct that he did not recognize the vehicle that he stopped and did not know who the driver was until makingeye contact with Mr. Joseph, having just blocked its progress at the stop sign. In cross-examination when asked if he had had anyprevious experience with this Pathfinder, he replied that he did not recall although he believed that another police officer had checked it.

However in a PRIME report written by him just 5 days earlier, he had stopped the vehicle and described it as being owned by Mr. Joseph[he wrote, Nigel XAVIER, but those are his names] although driven that day by Mr. Foote. Given the links he has made between thetwo of them in most of his PRIME reports including some set out above, I am satisfied that at the least, as soon as he saw that vehicle, heknew he was likely going to be dealing with either Mr. Joseph or Mr. Foote, both of whom he had been targeting for at least six months ifnot longer.

As such, he reacted to the sighting in a manner consistent with a drug investigation intended to prevent the destruction ofevidence rather than traffic enforcement duties. [29] Even without reference to that report, it is obvious that by rapidly completing a U-turn, then blocking a vehicle at a stop signwhile also obstructing traffic on a main through road, this was not a traffic stop but rather a drug investigation stop as described above. Routine traffic stops are conducted in a manner so as to not disrupt the rest of the traffic going about its ordinary business.

They are notordinarily engaged in without the driver being given at least some opportunity to stop in accordance with police signals, usuallyemergency lights, at the side of the road. On the other hand, emergency stops including drug enforcement stops tend to include rapidmanoeuvres including blocking the forward passage of vehicles, as well as blocking other travelled portions of roadways, such as in thiscase.

Driving part way over a stop line before coming to a complete stop is a relatively minor and very common infraction and not onethat requires this sort of response. [30] The evidence that the driver raised something plastic to his mouth and drank rapidly from a bottle of water was used by the Cst.to reinforce his opinion that the driver was swallowing drugs. He testified that the final swallow essentially was taken when he wasalongside the driver’s window, trying to open the car door. He continued that after that swallow, the driver put the bottle on the consoleand unlocked the door.

These were the grounds he used combined with what he had apparently been told was typical behaviour of drugtraffickers in deciding he had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest Mr. Joseph for possession of narcotics.

However, none of thesefacts is contained in either his personal notes or his Report to Crown Counsel, both of which were written very shortly after thisinvestigation. [31] This is troubling when contrasted with the remarks contained in some of the earlier PRIME reports prepared by this officer inwhich he has given details of similar behaviour even though no charges were forthcoming from the other encounters. His testimonycommenced about thirteen months after this incident and continued over two further dates. Given the number of apparently similarencounters that he had had with Mr.

Joseph and others, and the complete absence of notes regarding these important details, it is not outof the question that looked at in the best light, he has simply confused this incident with one or more of the others in his memory. [32] The issue of insufficient notes was discussed by Chamberlist, J. in R. v. Givens 2009 BCSC 824, where he referred to thedecision of Bruce, J. in R. v. McConnell 2008 BCSC 505, where she said, at para. 133: 133. First, I don’t accept Cst. Gallop’s evidence that Ms McConnell had slurred speech.

Corporal Wright, a veteran police officerwith 26 years of experience did not note any slurring of her speech. Ms Dymus, the attending nurse, was also of the view that MsMcConnell’s speech was not slurred. Finally Cst. Gallop made no note of slurred speech until her report to Crown which was completedtwo months after the accident. She also included no details in regard to the slur; i.e. whether it was slight or significant and whether itwas constant or intermittent. Nor did Cst. Gallop note where and when she detected slurred speech.

Where such important details areabsent from contemporaneous records of the events and not recorded at all until some two months after the events, their reliability issuspect: Lozanovski at para 14 and 21. [33] Without these specific details being recorded in some form somewhere, I am not prepared to accept without a doubt that theincident in fact occurred as Cst.

Todd testified and that, in particular, there was any plastic or saran brought to the mouth, that there wasany swallowing with the aid of water, and that the vehicle door was locked. [34] That then leaves the grounds for arrest as apparently swallowing – for which there could be a plethora of explanations notinvolving drug possession – and the so-called “reputation” of Mr. Joseph. This basis for finding objective reasonable and probablegrounds is described in R. v Parchment 2007 BCCA 326, at para. 22, referring to R. v. Debot (SCC), [1989] 2 SCR1140, as follows: 22.

First, [the Appellant] contends that his reputation as a drug trafficker and his alleged nickname “Bing”, which I consider was partof his reputation, were based on inadmissible hearsay and therefore could not contribute to an objective basis for reasonable and probablegrounds. However, the reputation and the nickname relied upon by Constable Toye were based in part on his previous experience withthe appellant and in part on the appellant’s reputation amongst Constable Toye’s fellow police officers.

While the veracity of hearsayevidence of reputation generally cannot be assumed, when the reputation is based on police familiarity with the suspect and where it isrelated to the reasons for the search, as it was in this case, it can serve to corroborate other information and observations. [35] However, in this case, given that the reputation was to a large extent “created” by these PRIME reports, most significantly by thisconstable, and given that there was never any objective evidence to support the statements contained in those reports and that some of thestatements were in fact significantly erroneous and misleading, I find that any “reputation” deriving from them cannot be relied upon inestablishing reasonable and probable grounds. [36] Accordingly I am not satisfied that Cst.

Todd had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest Mr. Joseph for possession of anarcotic (being the substance that he thought had been swallowed), nor did he have grounds to detain him by removing him from hisvehicle and then conducting a search of Mr. Joseph and the vehicle. [37] As such I find that the actions of Cst. Todd breached the rights of Mr Joseph to be free from both arbitrary detention pursuant toSection 8 of the Charter and unreasonable search and seizure pursuant to

Section 9 of the Charter and that these breaches have bothbeen proven on at least a balance of probabilities.

Section 24 (2): [ 38 ] Having found that Mr. Joseph’s rights under the Charter had been violated, it remains to be determined whether or not the evidence obtained as a result of those breaches should be excluded on the trial. [ 39 ] The leading case of R. v. Grant 2009 SCC 32 reformulated the analysis to be undertaken by the court in considering Section 24(2) of the Charter .

This is described in para. 71 as follows: 71. …[the] court must assess and balance the effect of admitting the evidence on society’s confidence in the justice system having regard to: (1) the seriousness of the Charter -infringing state conduct…, (2) the impact of the breach on the Charter -protected interests of the accused…, and (3) society’s interest in the adjudication of the case on its merits.

The court’s role on a s.24(2) application is to balance the assessments under each of these lines of inquiry to determine whether, considering all the circumstances, admission of the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. [ 40 ] The concern that was raised by the Court under the first analysis is that the “admission [of the evidence] may send the message the justice system condones serious state misconduct.” This is further articulated in paras. 74 and 75 as follows: 74. State conduct resulting in Charter violations varies in seriousness.

At one end of the spectrum, admission of evidence obtained through inadvertent or minor violations of the Charter may minimally undermine public confidence in the rule of law. At the other end of the spectrum, admitting evidence obtained through a wilful or reckless disregard of Charter rights will inevitably have a negative effect on the public confidence in the rule of law, and risk bringing the administration of justice into disrepute. 75.

Extenuating circumstances, such as the need to prevent the disappearance of evidence, may attenuate the seriousness of police conduct that results in a Charter breach….”Good faith” on the part of the police will also reduce the need for the court to disassociate itself from the police conduct.

However, ignorance of Charter standards must not be rewarded or encouraged and negligence or wilful blindness cannot be equated with good faith….Wilful or flagrant disregard of the Charter by those very persons who are charged with upholding the right in question may require that the court dissociate itself from such conduct . It follows that deliberate police conduct in violation of established Charter standards tends to support exclusion of the evidence.

It should also be kept in mind that for every Charter breach that comes before the courts, many others may go unidentified and unredressed because they did not turn up relevant evidence leading to a criminal charge. In recognition of the need for courts to distance themselves from this behaviour, therefore, evidence that the Charter-infringing conduct was part of a pattern of abuse tends to support exclusion. [emphasis mine.] [ 41 ] In reviewing all of the evidence heard on the voir dire including the PRIME reports, I am satisfied that Mr.

Joseph was indeed the subject of a police campaign of harassment over at least the six months prior to the laying of these charges, and probably for up to another eleven months before that. I accept that whenever Cst. Todd saw him, whether he was the driver or passenger, the vehicle in which he was seated was stopped for a “traffic stop” notwithstanding, generally speaking, the absence of any motor vehicle infractions. On those few occasions where there was an infraction for which he, or if he was the passenger, was ticketed, he was still searched by Cst. Todd and the vehicle was searched.

He was never simply checked and then allowed to proceed once the traffic matter had been resolved. [ 42 ] The most egregious example of this was the incident involving the cologne. Without actually checking the item “believed to be bear spray”, there were no grounds for arrest and no basis to search either Mr. Joseph or his vehicle. Nonetheless that is exactly what Cst. Todd did, and he did not manage to check the item until after he had completed his search. Although Cst. Todd testified that Mr.

Joseph gave oral consent to the some of the searches, it is clear that he was never properly informed of his rights surrounding searches including the right to refuse to be searched. [ 43 ] I find that this pattern of behaviour on the part of the police in general, but more particularly on the part of Cst Todd, falls squarely within the description in R. v. Grant of “deliberate police conduct in violation of established Charter standards” and was “part of a pattern of abuse”. [ 44 ] In considering the second heading, the searches were not just of the vehicles, but also of the person of Mr.

Joseph, without any reasonable grounds. This intrudes on an area where an individual has a high expectation of privacy, and given that these typically were roadside where he could be observed by members of the public in the area, I find that they were also demeaning of his dignity. [ 45 ] While society generally has an interest in an adjudication on the merits, which tends to support inclusion of evidence, this interest must be balanced with the other two lines of inquiry set out above.

Conclusion: [ 46 ] I am satisfied that in this case the seriousness of the conduct of the police in terms of the on-going and intrusive “traffic stops” and searches of Mr. Joseph are such that the court cannot fail to disassociate itself from the wrongful actions of the police, and in particular, Cst. Todd. To do otherwise would unquestionably be seen to condone such activity. In addition, the impact on the privacy interests of Mr. Joseph is significant, and again, not supportable.

Although society certainly does have an interest in the evidence being admitted and the trial coming to conclusion on its merits, that interest is outweighed by the other two factors. [ 47 ] Accordingly I find that, pursuant to Section 24(2), the evidence that was obtained as a result of the search following the arrest of Mr. Joseph including, in particular, the crack cocaine seized from the vehicle, is excluded from being evidence on this trial on the basis that its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. __________________________________ The Honourable Judge D. Pothecary

Provincial Court of British Columbia