R. v. Barros

R. v. Barros
Collection
Supreme Court Judgments
Date
2011-10-26
Neutral citation
2011 SCC 51
Report
[2011] 3 SCR 368
Case number
33727
Judges
McLachlin, Beverley; Binnie, William Ian Corneil; LeBel, Louis; Deschamps, Marie; Fish, Morris J.; Abella, Rosalie Silberman; Charron, Louise; Rothstein, Marshall; Cromwell, Thomas Albert
On appeal from
Alberta
Subjects
Criminal law
Notes
SCC Case Information: 33727
Decision Content
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Citation: R. v. Barros, 2011 SCC 51, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 368
Date: 20111026
Docket: 33727
Between:
Ross Barros
Appellant
and
Her Majesty The Queen
Respondent
- and -
Director of Public Prosecutions, Attorney General of Ontario,
Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, Canadian Crime Stoppers
Association, Canadian Civil Liberties Association and
Criminal Lawyers’ Association of Ontario
Interveners
Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell JJ.
Reasons for Judgment:
(paras. 1 to 83)
Reasons Dissenting in Part:
(paras. 84 to 104):
Reasons Dissenting in Part:
(paras. 105 to 126):
Binnie J. (McLachlin C.J. and LeBel, Deschamps, Abella, Charron and Rothstein JJ. concurring)
Fish J.
Cromwell J.
R. v. Barros, 2011 SCC 51, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 368
Ross Barros Appellant
v.
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent
and
Director of Public Prosecutions, Attorney General
of Ontario, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police,
Canadian Crime Stoppers Association, Canadian Civil
Liberties Association and Criminal Lawyers’
Association of Ontario Interveners
Indexed as: R. v. Barros
2011 SCC 51
File No.: 33727.
2011: January 25; 2011: October 26.
Present: McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for alberta
Criminal law — Informer privilege — Private investigator hired by defence to identify confidential police informant — Investigator allegedly attempting to obtain stay of charges by identifying informant — Whether investigator bound by informer privilege.
Criminal law — Appeals — Powers of court of appeal — Private investigator hired by defence to identify confidential police informant — Investigator allegedly attempting to obtain stay of charges by identifying informant — Investigator charged with one count of obstructing justice and two counts of extortion — Court of appeal overturning acquittals and ordering new trial — Whether trial judge committed errors of law allowing appellate review of acquittals — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 676(1) (a).
B was a former police officer working as a private investigator. He was hired by the lawyer for Q, who had been charged with several drug offences based on information from a confidential police informant. To discover the identity of the informant, B met with several of Q’s associates and requested their phone records and other information. He then met with the police officer in charge of Q’s case and told the officer he knew who the informant was. B was later charged with one count of obstruction of justice and two counts of extortion. The judge directed a verdict of acquittal on the obstruction charge (Count 1), finding B was entitled to take any investigative steps to discover the informant’s identity. The judge acquitted B of extortion with respect to the conversation with the police officer (Count 2), because the Crown had not established that B had the objective of ending the criminal proceedings against Q when he spoke to the officer. She also found no legal threat had been made and that the Crown had failed to negate justification or excuse for B’s conduct. With respect to the extortion committed against Q’s associates, the judge found the Crown proved neither a threat nor the intention required for extortion and acquitted B on Count 3. The Crown appealed the directed verdict and the acquittals. A majority of the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial on all three counts.
Held (Fish and Cromwell JJ. dissenting in part): The appeal should be allowed in part.
Per McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Abella, Charron and Rothstein JJ.: The duty to protect and enforce informer privilege rests on the police, the Crown, and the courts. The latter must not disclose any information that would tend to reveal an informer’s identity. However, the defence, including in this case B, is not bound by any such duty in undertaking its own investigation independently of the courts and the prosecution. The defence is entitled to do what it can to identify the informant and otherwise make full answer and defence, provided that the methods used are lawful. The right to make full answer and defence is fundamental to criminal justice and is protected by s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms . However, not all attempts to identify an informant will be linked to that right. It will depend on the circumstances. Some defence enquiries may amount to an obstruction of justice, or extortion, depending on the manner in which the enquiries are carried out and their intended purpose, and the other circumstances of the case.
In this case, the gist of the obstruction of justice charge (Count 1) is not just that B sought the name of the police informer, but that he did so to force the charges against Q to be dropped. This, if established, was not information gathering for a lawful purpose. Section 139 of the Criminal Code describes a crime that is complete upon proof of an attempt without the necessity of success or actual completion. The offence is framed broadly. The necessary limit is found in the obligation of the Crown to prove the mental element. A directed verdict is not available if there is any admissible evidence, which, if believed, would justify a conviction. In this case, there was evidence against B that, if believed, would establish intent to obstruct justice. To direct a verdict of acquittal was an error of law justifying a new trial.
As to the extortion charge (Count 2), the trial judge erred in concluding that the indirect suggestions and veiled references by B were not capable, as a matter of law, of satisfying the threats element of extortion. A veiled reference may constitute a threat if it is sufficient, in light of all the circumstances, to convey to the victim the consequences which he or she fears or would prefer to avoid. In this case, the question is what would a reasonable person in the position of the police officer understand? The officer testified that he understood well enough that the threat was to his source. The trial judge erred in her legal analysis of what conduct could qualify as a threat for the purpose of the extortion charge. Having erred in her legal analysis, the trial judge’s consequential and dependent finding of B’s lack of the requisite intent cannot stand and the Crown is entitled to a new trial on this count.
As to any reasonable justification or excuse, the trial judge accepted at face value B’s explanation that he was trying to be helpful to the police rather than threatening. However, the trial judge should have considered B’s conduct in its entirety, including the gathering of the information in the first place, and delved below the surface of the exchanges between the accused and the police, particularly where, as here, the protagonists spring from the same occupational background. Much that is understood between them need not be stated explicitly.
As to the last count of extortion, however, the legal errors that tainted the trial judge’s analysis had no bearing on her reasons for acquittal. Count 3 relates to B’s dealings with Q’s associates. It was rejected on the facts by the trial judge, who found the Crown’s key witness (an associate) to be unreliable. The only other evidence on that count came from statements given by B to the police which were largely self-exculpatory. The trial judge thus rejected the existence of any factual foundation to which her admittedly erroneous legal test could be applied. It would be a serious matter to deprive an accused of the benefit of an acquittal where, as here, the Crown is found to have led no credible evidence to support a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. The Crown presumably put forward the case it had on Count 3 at the trial. The Crown is not entitled to a retrial based on a trial judge’s flawed legal analysis that had no impact on the outcome of the case. The verdict of the acquittal rendered by the trial judge on Count 3 should stand.
Per Fish J. (dissenting in part): A new trial should be ordered on Count 1 and an acquittal entered on Count 3.
As to Count 2, no new trial should be ordered. The trial judge committed no error of law in acquitting B on that count. She expressly directed herself in accordance with the Ontario pattern jury instructions, noting that she was required, as a jury would be, to consider B’s entire course of conduct. In considering whether B had a reasonable justification or excuse for his conduct, the trial judge recognized the need to assess the reasonableness of his conduct in the circumstances, as required by the pattern instructions, and stated that she had indeed reviewed all of the circumstances. She did not ignore any significant circumstance in applying the law to the facts as she found them. Nor did the trial judge misdirect herself as to whether B’s conduct was capable in law of constituting a threat. Nowhere in her reasons did she indicate that, as a matter of law, explicit threats or demands were an essential element of extortion. In fact, she explicitly directed herself to the contrary. Moreover, in denying the motion for a directed verdict on Count 2, the trial judge concluded that there was some evidence on every element of the offence. Thus, the trial judge, applying the proper test for a directed verdict, did recognize that B’s conduct could constitute a threat as a matter of law. At the conclusion of the trial, she was simply not satisfied as a matter of fact, that the evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that B had threatened to reveal the identity of the informant.
Per Cromwell J. (dissenting in part): The reasons of Binnie J. with respect to Counts 1 and 2 are agreed with. As to Count 3, a new trial should be ordered as well. In reaching her decision on this count, the trial judge considered that insofar as the Crown had failed to call certain named and unnamed alleged victims as witnesses at trial, it could not prove that they had been victims of extortion. The only evidence to consider, in her view, was therefore that given by K. Finding K’s evidence to be mostly unreliable, she acquitted B on Count 3.
It is true that K was the only one of the persons named in the count to testify at trial. However, to succeed on this count, the Crown did not have to prove that B had threatened K. Nor did it have to prove that K felt threatened by B’s conduct. The Crown’s burden was to present evidence, whether from the alleged victims or not, which satisfied each element of the offence.
Even without K’s evidence, there was evidence which was capable in law of proving each element of the offence. Of course, whether the evidence did so is for a trier of fact, not an appellate court, to determine. However, the trial judge’s legal error coupled with her failure to turn her mind to these elements had a material bearing on her decision to acquit. That being the case, the correct disposition of this portion of the appeal is to direct a new trial, not reinstate the acquittal.
Cases Cited
By Binnie J.
Referred to: The Trial of Thomas Hardy for High Treason (1794), 24 St. Tr. 199; Marks v. Beyfus (1890), 25 Q.B.D. 494; R. v. Leipert, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 281; R. v. Basi, 2009 SCC 52, [2009] 3 S.C.R. 389; Bisaillon v. Keable, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 60; R. v. Hunter (1987), 57 C.R. (3d) 1; R. v. Scott, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 979; Named Person v. Vancouver Sun, 2007 SCC 43, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 253; R. v. McCormack, 2009 CanLII 76382; R. v. Broyles, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 595; R. v. Davies (1982), 1 C.C.C. (3d) 299; R. v. Babes (2000), 146 C.C.C. (3d) 465; R. v. National Post, 2010 SCC 16, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 477; Carey v. Ontario, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 637; R. v. Hirschboltz, 2004 SKQB 17, [2006] 1 W.W.R. 174; R. v. Hearn, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1180; R. v. Beaudry, 2007 SCC 5, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 190; R. v. Charemski, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 679; R. v. Bigras, 2004 CanLII 21267; R. v. Graveline, 2006 SCC 16, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 609; R. v. Biniaris, 2000 SCC 15, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 381; R. v. B. (G.), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 57; R. v. Natarelli, [1967] S.C.R. 539; R. v. Alexander (2005), 206 C.C.C. (3d) 233, leave to appeal refused, [2006] 1 S.C.R. v; R. v. Royz (2008), 248 O.A.C. 361; R. v. Davis, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 759; R. v. McClure (1957), 22 W.W.R. 167; R. v. Hodson, 2001 ABCA 111, 92 Alta. L.R. (3d) 262; R. v. Pelletier (1992), 71 C.C.C. (3d) 438; Vézeau v. The Queen, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 277; R. v. Sutton, 2000 SCC 50, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 595.
By Fish J. (dissenting in part)
Rousseau v. The Queen, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 38; R. v. Walker, 2008 SCC 34, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 245; R. v. Graveline, 2006 SCC 16, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 609; R. v. Mahalingan, 2008 SCC 63, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 316.
By Cromwell J. (dissenting in part)
R. v. Graveline, 2006 SCC 16, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 609; R. v. Sutton, 2000 SCC 50, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 595; R. v. McClure (1957), 22 W.W.R. 167; R. v. N.N., 2008 BCCA 300, 257 B.C.A.C. 304.
Statutes and Regulations Cited
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 7 .
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, ss. 139 , 346(1) , (1.1) (a), (b), 676 .
Authors Cited
Hubbard, Robert W., Susan Magotiaux and Suzanne M. Duncan. The Law of Privilege in Canada. Aurora, Ont.: Canada Law Book, 2006 (loose-leaf updated May 2011, release 12).
Watt, David. Watt’s Manual of Criminal Jury Instructions. Toronto: Thomson/Carswell, 2005.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Alberta Court of Appeal (Berger, Watson and Slatter JJ.A.), 2010 ABCA 116, 25 Alta. L.R. (5th) 326, 477 A.R. 127, 483 W.A.C. 127, 254 C.C.C. (3d) 50, 75 C.R. (6th) 257, 208 C.R.R. (2d) 206, [2010] 10 W.W.R. 36, [2010] A.J. No. 387 (QL), 2010 CarswellAlta 643, setting aside the acquittals entered by Veit J., 2007 ABQB 428, 80 Alta. L.R. (4th) 390, [2007] A.J. No. 694 (QL), 2007 CarswellAlta 848, and ordering a new trial. Appeal allowed in part, Fish and Cromwell JJ. dissenting in part.
Hersh Wolch, Q.C., for the appellant.
James C. Robb, Q.C., for the respondent.
Nancy L. Irving and François Lacasse, for the intervener the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Paul S. Lindsay, for the intervener the Attorney General of Ontario.
Derek Lai and Greg Preston, for the intervener the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.
Robert S. Gill, for the intervener the Canadian Crime Stoppers Association.
Anil K. Kapoor and Senem Ozkin, for the intervener the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
Susan M. Chapman and Jennifer Micallef, for the intervener the Criminal Lawyers’ Association of Ontario.
The judgment of McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Abella, Charron and Rothstein JJ. was delivered by
[1] Binnie J. — The jurisprudence establishes that the identity of police informers is protected by a near-absolute privilege that overrides the Crown’s general duty of disclosure to the defence. This privilege is subject neither to judicial discretion nor any balancing of competing interests (although qualified by an “innocence at stake” exception). The trial judge held however that this privilege does not restrict a defence investigation into the identity of a police informant, and further, that the attempt to fetter such a defence investigation would violate the constitutional right of an accused to a full answer and defence guaranteed by s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms . A majority of the Alberta Court of Appeal disagreed. In its view, on the contrary, informer’s privilege prohibits the accused or anyone on his behalf from making efforts even wholly independent of the prosecution to discover which of his associates, if any, had “ratted” on him. This proposed extension of the rule would transform a rule of non-disclosure binding on the police, the prosecutorial authorities and the courts into a general prohibition of investigation into police informers binding on the whole world. In my view, with respect, this goes too far.
[2] An accused is not restricted by the narrow parameters of the “innocence at stake” exception when making his or her own enquiries independently of the state but nor can it be said, as the trial judge seems to have concluded, that all attempts by the accused to identify a confidential informer are constitutionally protected. What is constitutionally protected is the s. 7 right to make full answer and defence. Not all attempts to identify an informant will be linked to this right. It will depend on the circumstances.
[3] Some defence enquiries may of course amount to an obstruction of justice, or extortion, depending on the manner in which the enquiries are carried out and their intended purpose and the totality of the circumstances of the case. Here, for example, the Crown alleges that the appellant, Mr. Barros, an investigator hired by the defence counsel in a criminal trial, sought by threats or other unlawful means to find out the identity of the informer for use for an unlawful purpose, namely as a bargaining lever to force the Crown to withdraw the charges rather than risk disclosure of the identity of its informant. The Crown contends that Mr. Barros sought to discover the identity of the informer — by extortionate means — to have the Crown withdraw the charges against his client, Irfan Qureshi.
[4] The prosecution’s case was rejected by the trial judge, who was not satisfied that the activities of Mr. Barros were directed to obstructing justice, nor, in her view, did the Crown establish the elements of extortion beyond a reasonable doubt.
[5] While I disagree with the majority of the Court of Appeal on the scope of the informer privilege, I do agree that the trial judge erred with respect to her legal analysis of the elements of obstruction of justice (Count 1) and extortion in respect of the dealings of Mr. Barros with the police (Count 2). On these two counts, I agree that there must be a new trial.
[6] The second charge of extortion related to the dealings of Mr. Barros with members of Qureshi’s group (Count 3). It was rejected on the facts by the trial judge, who found the Crown’s key witness (a group member) to be unreliable. The only other evidence on that count came from statements given by Mr. Barros to the police which were (as one would expect) largely self-exculpatory. The legal errors that tainted the trial judge’s view of extortion had no bearing on her reasons for the acquittal on Count 3. The Crown has no right of appeal from the trial judge’s findings of fact. In ordering a new trial on Count 3, the Court of Appeal engaged in a reweighing of the evidence and thereby erred, in my respectful opinion. In that respect, the appeal is allowed. In other respects, the appeal is dismissed.
I. Facts
[7] In March 2005, Sgt. Kevin Brezinski of the Edmonton drug squad obtained and executed a search warrant at the home of Irfan Qureshi based in part on the information provided by a confidential police informer. The police seized 1.5 kg each of methamphetamine and cocaine, three handguns, a bulletproof vest and paraphernalia for cooking and packaging cocaine. In the same month a second search netted a seizure of 4 kg of cocaine, 6 oz. of methamphetamine, a handgun, and $55,000. Qureshi and others were charged with a number of drug trafficking and firearms offences.
[8] Defence counsel retained the appellant Ross Barros, a private investigator, to look into the strengths and weaknesses of the Crown’s case. Mr. Barros is a retired police officer with 25 years of experience with the Edmonton police service, seven of which were engaged in investigating drug crimes.
[9] Mr. Barros decided to take steps to discover the informer’s identity. According to the theory of the prosecution, he met with Qureshi’s associates, told them he was working for the defence and was going to find out who had informed on Qureshi. He demanded the associates’ cell phone numbers to see if any of them had been in touch with the investigating officer, Sgt. Brezinski. Mr. Barros warned them that the informer in their midst should seek legal advice and contact him so that they could “work this thing together”.
[10] Mr. Barros obtained the associates’ call records from sources unknown. He also compared the criminal record of each of the associates against the disclosed criminal record of the informer to eliminate potential candidates. He helped identify a polygraph operator, and suggested that those of Qureshi’s associates who had not provided their cell phone numbers should instead participate in a polygraph test. He later began approaching individuals, telling each that he “knew” that person was the informer.
[11] Mirza Kassam, the only one of the associates to testify at trial, said he arrived late at the initial meeting in which Mr. Barros requested the associates’ phone numbers. He left his name and number on a piece of Mr. Barros’s letterhead. After Kassam missed a subsequent meeting, he was instructed to call Mr. Barros, whom he later met in a parking lot. Mr. Barros told him, “[Y]ou’re the informant”. Kassam says he denied the accusation but was afraid of falling under suspicion because “out there, informants get killed”. Mr. Barros demanded Kassam’s cell phone records. Kassam said he felt that if he did not comply, Mr. Barros would conclude that he was the informer. Kassam testified to his belief that Mr. Barros wanted him to confess so that Mr. Barros could put it to the police that he knew who their source was and get the charges dropped. Kassam said that after this meeting, despite his denial, the other associates became very hostile towards him and he feared that he might be killed. (The trial judge found this evidence to be wholly unreliable.)
[12] Mr. Barros eventually arranged a meeting with Sgt. Brezinski for May 6, 2005, at a local golf course. Sgt. Krewenchuk was also present at this meeting. Qureshi had a bail hearing scheduled for the same date. Sgt. Brezinski had already recommended bail for Qureshi on strict conditions. Mr. Barros advised Sgt. Brezinski (up until that time a personal friend) that he knew the identity of the informer but that he had not revealed this information to Qureshi. Nor was he going to advise his retaining counsel of the informer’s identity “at this time”.
[13] Mr. Barros told Sgt. Brezinski and Sgt. Krewenchuk of several cases Mr. Barros recalled from his time on the Edmonton police force where the charges against an accused were dropped in order to protect the informer once the identity of an informer was discovered. Mr. Barros said that although he had not told anyone about the informer’s identity, he would eventually have to report it to defence counsel. Sgt. Brezinski testified that he understood Mr. Barros to be asking him to drop the charges against Qureshi if he didn’t want the identity of the informer to be revealed. Sgt. Brezinski told Mr. Barros that he was committing extortion and obstruction of justice.
[14] Mr. Barros was charged with one count of obstructing justice for taking investigative steps to identify a confidential police source “for the purpose of interfering with criminal proceedings” against Irfan Qureshi. He was also charged with two counts of extortion, firstly for attempting to induce Sgt. Brezinski to withdraw the criminal proceedings against Qureshi at the May 6 meeting and, secondly, for inducing or attempting to induce the associates of Qureshi (including Kassam) to give him personal information including cellular phone numbers between March 7 and May 12, 2005.
[15] In a cautioned statement to police on May 13, 2005, following his arrest, Mr. Barros said that he knew the identity of the informer and was aware that the person thus identified would be in danger if this were disclosed, even if his “identification” turned out to be mistaken. He agreed that following the arrest of one of its members, a criminal organization will often attempt to identify and eliminate police informers within their group.
[16] Mr. Barros said in his police statement that he knew from previous experience that the protection of an informer’s identity was a paramount concern of the police. He added that he believed it was routine for the Crown and the police to stay the charges against an accused where this became necessary to protect the identity of an informer. He offered a number of examples in which he had done so as a police officer. He said, however, that he had been motivated in his investigation of Qureshi’s associates to ensure that no harm befell the “source” thus identified.
II. Relevant Statutory Provisions
[17] Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46
346. (1) [Extortion] Every one commits extortion who, without reasonable justification or excuse and with intent to obtain anything, by threats, accusations, menaces or violence induces or attempts to induce any person, whether or not he is the person threatened, accused or menaced or to whom violence is shown, to do anything or cause anything to be done.
(1.1) [Punishment] Every person who commits extortion is guilty of an indictable offence and liable
(a) where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and
(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.
139. (1) [Obstructing justice] Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding,
(a) by indemnifying or agreeing to indemnify a surety, in any way and either in whole or in part, or
(b) where he is a surety, by accepting or agreeing to accept a fee or any form of indemnity whether in whole or in part from or in respect of a person who is released or is to be released from custody,
is guilty of
(c) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or
(d) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
(2) [Idem] Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner other than a manner described in subsection (1) to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
(3) [Idem] Without restricting the generality of subsection (2), every one shall be deemed wilfully to attempt to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice who in a judicial proceeding, existing or proposed,
(a) dissuades or attempts to dissuade a person by threats, bribes or other corrupt means from giving evidence;
(b) influences or attempts to influence by threats, bribes or other corrupt means a person in his conduct as a juror; or
(c) accepts or obtains, agrees to accept or attempts to obtain a bribe or other corrupt consideration to abstain from giving evidence, or to do or to refrain from doing anything as a juror.
676. (1) [Right of Attorney General to appeal] The Attorney General or counsel instructed by him for the purpose may appeal to the court of appeal
(a) against a judgment or verdict of acquittal or a verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder of a trial court in proceedings by indictment on any ground of appeal that involves a question of law alone;
(b) against an order of a superior court of criminal jurisdiction that quashes an indictment or in any manner refuses or fails to exercise jurisdiction on an indictment;
(c) against an order of a trial court that stays proceedings on an indictment or quashes an indictment; or
(d) with leave of the court of appeal or a judge thereof, against the sentence passed by a trial court in proceedings by indictment, unless that sentence is one fixed by law.
III. Judicial History
A. Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench (Veit J.), Oral Reasons, December 21, 2007
[18] The trial judge concluded that there was no evidence upon which a reasonable jury could convict on the count of obstruction because Mr. Barros was constitutionally entitled to take investigative steps to identify the informer and his acts were not criminal. She therefore directed a verdict of acquittal on that charge. The two counts of extortion proceeded. Both were dismissed in oral reasons for judgment.
[19] In the trial judge’s view, the Crown had not established that Mr. Barros induced or attempted to induce Sgt. Brezinski to withdraw the criminal proceedings against Qureshi. Sgt. Brezinski did not testify that Mr. Barros had explicitly requested the charges be dropped; only that he interpreted Mr. Barros to be asking for this. Accordingly, the prosecution had not proven that Mr. Barros threatened Sgt. Brezinski, nor had it negated any reasonable justification or excuse for his actions. The trial judge emphasized that Mr. Barros had not disclosed the identity to defence counsel and had generally made an effort to “make sure that no one would get hurt” in the course of his dealings with the police (A.R., at p. 17).
[20] Regarding the second count of extortion, the trial judge found that the Crown had proven that Mr. Barros did induce or attempt to induce Qureshi’s associates to provide their cell phone numbers, but not that Mr. Barros used threats or violence to do so; nor did it establish the absence of any reasonable justification for his actions. Extortion had not been established beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr. Barros was therefore acquitted on all counts.
B. Alberta Court of Appeal (Berger, Watson and Slatter JJ.A.), 2010 ABCA 116, 25 Alta. L.R. (5th) 326
[21] The Crown appealed both the directed verdict on the charge of obstruction of justice and the acquittals on the two charges of extortion. A new trial was ordered on all three charges.
(1) The Majority — Slatter J.A.
[22] Writing for himself and Watson J.A., Slatter J.A. held that the trial judgment contained “some factually based errors that are so egregious as to undermine the whole verdict, and so amount to errors of law” (para. 27). As to the scope of informer privilege rule, he wrote:
Both the existing informer and the potential informer will regard it as equally dangerous regardless of whether their identity is disclosed by the police, or discovered independently by the accused. In either case, their safety is jeopardized, and the willingness of citizens to come forward with important information is compromised. Leipert sets out a public policy basis for the privilege that depends on secrecy; the whole privilege cannot be swept away by saying an accused has a private right to expose informers. [para. 46]
Slatter J.A. found that the methods used by Mr. Barros were inherently malevolent and oppressive and inclined to obstruct justice (para. 67). In his view, taking investigative steps to discover the identity of an informer, without more, prima facie amounts to obstruction of justice absent a reasonable justification or excuse (para. 68), of which there was none in this case.
[23] On the first extortion charge, Slatter J.A. noted that while the trial judge was entitled to deference on her findings of fact, her conclusions that the meeting between Mr. Barros and Sgt. Brezinski was about Qureshi’s application for bail on the same date, and that Mr. Barros did not threaten Sgt. Brezinski, were unsupported by the evidence. The threatened harm was the possibility of retribution against the informer by Qureshi or members of his group.
[24] On the second charge of extortion, Slatter J.A. concluded that the trial judge had misapprehended the evidence, and that her description of the danger facing a suspected informer as “social pressure” was unreasonable. Mr. Barros did make threats against the associates in order to obtain their phone numbers and call records without reasonable justification and it was a reversible error to conclude otherwise.
(2) The Dissent — Berger J.A.
[25] Berger J.A. argued that the accused was entitled to take steps to investigate the informer in furtherance of his defence. The police and the courts have a duty not to disclose the informer’s identity to defence counsel, but the jurisprudence does not place any such prohibition on the accused or those acting on his behalf. In his view, the majority opinion would transform “the prohibition against revelation to a prohibition against discovery” (para. 117).
[26] The trial judge made a finding that the Crown had failed to establish that the purpose of Mr. Barros in arranging a meeting with Sgt. Brezinski was to stop the proceedings against Qureshi: “It follows that the Crown enjoys no right of appeal in respect of [this] finding which alone is sufficient to dispose of the appeal on count 2” (para. 144).
[27] On the second extortion count, there was no reason to interfere with the findings of the trial judge that Kassam was an unreliable witness and that the other elements of the offence of extortion had not been proven (paras. 149-52). Accordingly, Berger J.A. would have dismissed the Crown appeal in its entirety.
IV. Analysis
[28] The right of an accused to do what he or she can to make full answer and defence is fundamental to criminal justice. Yet informer privilege has been recognized at least since The Trial of Thomas Hardy for High Treason (1794), 24 St. Tr. 199, as an essential element in the investigation of crime and the protection of the public. Once informer privilege is found to exist, no exception or balancing of interests is made except “if upon the trial of a prisoner the judge should be of opinion that the disclosure of the name of the informant is necessary or right in order to show the prisoner’s innocence” (Marks v. Beyfus (1890), 25 Q.B.D. 494 (C.A.), at p. 498; R. v. Leipert, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 281, at paras. 23-24; and R. v. Basi, 2009 SCC 52, [2009] 3 S.C.R. 389, at para. 43). However, precisely because informer privilege can place a significant limitation on the activities of the defence, it is important not to extend its scope beyond what is necessary to achieve its purpose of protecting informers and encouraging individuals with knowledge of criminal activities to come forward to speak to the authorities.
[29] In order to assess the ramifications of the extension of informer privilege endorsed by the majority in the Alberta Court of Appeal, it is convenient to set out some of the broad parameters of the relevant law as it presently exists.
A. The Importance of Informer Privilege
[30] Police rely heavily on informers. Because of its almost absolute nature, the privilege encourages other potential informers to come forward with some assurance of protection against reprisal. A more flexible rule that would leave disclosure up to the discretion of the individual trial judge would rob informers of that assurance and sap their willingness to cooperate. See Bisaillon v. Keable, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 60; R. v. Hunter (1987), 57 C.R. (3d) 1 (Ont. C.A.); R. v. Scott, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 979; Named Person v. Vancouver Sun, 2007 SCC 43, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 253; Leipert; and Basi. The obligation to protect confidential sources clearly goes beyond a rule of evidence and is not limited to the courtroom. As the trial judge in this case put it, “The police need help, but people who are available to provide information typically won’t give that information to the police unless they are protected” (A.R., at p. 7).
[31] Of course, not everybody who provides information to the police thereby becomes a confidential informant. In a clear case, confidentiality is explicitly sought by the informer and agreed to by the police. As noted in Basi, at para. 36:
The privilege arises where a police officer, in the course of an investigation, guarantees protection and confidentiality to a prospective informer in exchange for useful information that would otherwise be difficult or impossible to obtain.
Bisaillon, however, added that the promise need not be express. It may be implicit in the circumstances:
The rule gives a peace officer the power to promise his informers secrecy expressly or by implication, with a guarantee sanctioned by the law that this promise will be kept even in court, and to receive in exchange for this promise information without which it would be extremely difficult for him to carry out his duties and ensure that the criminal law is obeyed. [Emphasis added; p. 105.]
[32] A claim to informer status is always open to challenge by the defence. The Crown is better able to meet that challenge if it can point to clear evidence of informer status being conferred explicitly rather than after-the-fact supposition. Keeping in mind that informer’s privilege was created and is enforced as a matter of public interest rather than contract, it might be argued that in a situation of serious potential danger, the informer privilege (or other public interest privilege) might apply even in the absence of the contract-type elements of offer and acceptance. However, that question does not arise on the facts of this case and I say no more about the issue.
[33] Unfounded claims to different types of privilege are made from time to time and, as counsel for Mr. Barros points out, there have been cases where the police have claimed informer status in manifestly inappropriate circumstances; see, e.g., R. v. McCormack, 2009 CanLII 76382 (Ont. S.C.J.). It would not, I think, be in the interest of justice to accept the proposition of the majority in the Alberta Court of Appeal that would prevent an accused from ascertaining independently of the state whether facts for such a challenge exist. No protection is afforded to a “source” whose conduct goes beyond the provision of information and acts as an “agent provocateur” or is otherwise a material witness to the crime. Both the agent provocateur and the material witness play an active role in criminal investigations and proceedings that goes beyond “tipping” the police. Once a police informer goes into the “field” and acts as a police agent, the informer privilege is no longer applicable to prevent disclosure of his or her identity in respect of the events in which he or she acted as an agent: R. v. Broyles, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 595, at pp. 607-9; R. v. Davies (1982), 1 C.C.C. (3d) 299 (Ont. C.A.), at p. 303; R. v. Babes (2000), 146 C.C.C. (3d) 465 (Ont. C.A.). This does not mean, of course, that the informer loses protection in other cases where he or she has not stepped out of the protected role.
[34] This Court in Leipert held that the rule of non-disclosure binds the state unless the accused can establish “a basis on the evidence for concluding that disclosure of the informer’s identity is necessary to demonstrate the innocence of the accused . . . . [M]ere speculation that the information might assist the defence is insufficient” (per McLachlin J., at para. 21 (emphasis added)). This is the “innocence at stake” exception to the general public interest obligation of the state to protect the confidentiality of informer identity. The importance of informer privilege should not be allowed to trump “the right of an individual accused to establish his or her innocence by raising a reasonable doubt as to guilt [which] has always remained paramount” (Scott, at pp. 995-96).
[35] The courts will enforce the privilege where it is applicable whether it is claimed or not (Bisaillon, at pp. 84 and 88; Basi, at para. 38), and, as stated, without the balancing of competing interests that applies to some other forms of privilege such as journalistic privilege, R. v. National Post, 2010 SCC 16, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 477, or public interest privilege generally, Carey v. Ontario, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 637, unless the protection is waived by the informer and the state: Basi, at para. 40; Named Person, at paras. 22-23; Leipert, at paras. 12-15; and B