The court advised that the Crown should have guarded the privilege prior to the hearing since informant privilege is not a matter of discretion. The Supreme Court found that the Crown had erred in disclosing the Crime Stoppers’ tip sheet to the defence along with all relevant supporting information prior to the pre-trial motion. The case is interesting because even though the Crown was successful on its motion, this was in spite of a massive error on its part. In this case the Supreme Court upheld the application judge’s ruling allowing the disclosure of identity of the tipster in a pre-trial motion brought by the Crown. In Durham Regional Crime Stoppers, the Supreme Court acknowledged that informant privilege does not arise where a person phones in a tip that is intended to further criminal activity or interfere with the criminal justice system.
The case that ruled informant privilege to apply to an anonymous Crime Stoppers’ Tip was Leipert released by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1997. The only exception is the “innocence at stake exception” and apart from this, the rule protecting the identity of the informant is absolute. , 2017 SCC 45 clearly indicates that informant privilege is a sacrosanct class privilege and subject to a “complete and total bar” on any disclosure of the informant’s identity and on any information that may result in the disclosure of the informant’s identity. In 2017, the Crown wished to pierce the veil on a Crime Stoppers’ Tip that it believed was phoned in by a murderer in order to divert police attention from himself in the investigation that followed. Informant privilege often arises when there have been tips given to the police pursuant to the popular “Crime Stoppers’ Tips” program. Two recent cases from the Supreme Court of Canada have made it clear that there is a special and detailed procedure that must be followed when a party to litigation wishes to challenge the inviolability of informant privilege. The subject of Crime Stoppers’ Tips provides a great deal of opportunity for lengthy litigation.
0 kommentar(er)
