Criminal Procedure for British Columbia - myassignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about theCriminal Procedure for British Columbia. Answer: According to the facts the legal profession privileges has defines the protection of the communication between the solicitor and their clients who make promised to never disclosed any information regarding to the works. The privilege helps to protects the legal principle for the individual person for their ability to access the justice system by disclosing every information. In Canada Solicitorclient privilege define as a common law evidentiary principle which always makes it recognizable as a substantive rule which always get protected through the constitution (Garland, 2014). According to Justice Lamer the solicitorclient privilege always explain the confidentiality of communication under some circumstances where communication can be disclosed without the client's consent. Without the permission of the law the legitimate exercise of a right make the appearance through the interference of another persons right where the communication with the solicitor should be confidential and must not make any conflict with the confidentiality. The law provides the authority under some condition and when it has been provided to someone it holds the rights of interference with confidentiality. The decision which has been taken must make the choice of means of exercising and the authority make the determination with the decision for not interfering with confidentiality (Murphy, 2015). According to the test on communication of privilege it defines a rule of evidence which helps to protects from disclosure in court documents or communications made for the dominant purpose of litigation: Two factual determinations must be made to assess whether litigation privilege attaches to a document and it arises several queries like was litigation in reasonable prospect at the time the document was produced or what was the dominant purpose for its production? The test has been found in the case of Dos Santos v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, 2005. In the case of Physicians of British Columbia v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2002, the BC Court of Appeal introduced the term dominant purpose which describe the elements requires that litigation be in reasonable contemplation: If litigation was not in reasonable prospect, then the Documents were not produced for the dominant purpose of litigation. Thus, the reasonable contemplation of litigation requir ement should likely be considered first and, if satisfied, the dominant purpose requirement evaluated. When evaluating a claim of privilege one must consider the circumstances and intent when the document was created. The proper time to consider whether the test is met is when the particular documents that are in issue, namely the reports that accompanied the witness statements and photographs, were created like in the case of Sauv v. ICBC, 2010 (Murphy, 2015). A spouse could only be compelled to testify for the prosecution, as an exception to the general rule, if the accused person was charged with certain offences like involving danger or the threat of danger to the spouse, violence, cruelty or threats against the spouses child or violent or sexual offences against any child less than 14 years of age. The OLD sections 4(2) or 4(4) of the Canada Evidence Act define such legislations. According to the common law spouses cannot assert spousal privilege. In the case of R v Nguyen it has been testify that according to the common law spouses did not enjoy the protections of the spousal incompetency rules. However in the case of R vs. Hall it has been found that the rule has been again judged on spousal incompetency about their privilege. according to the fact of the case the Canada Evidence Act has been describe that spouses can and will be compelled to testify against their marriage partners, and that they will need to actively assert a right to spousal privilege if they wish to protect conversations occurring during their marriage. It effectively gives the testifying spouse a choice whether or not to disclose incriminating communications (Garland, 2014). The informer privilege is important because it provided the protection for the enforcement of the law. It is way of the duty of all citizens to apply in enforcing the law. The discharge of this duty carries with it the risk of retribution from those involved in crime (King, 2014). Informer privilege is a class privilege where the relevant relationship is established between the confiding party and the party in whom the confidence is placed, privilege presumptively cloaks in confidentiality matters properly within its scope without regard to the particulars of the situation. According to the Sections 37, 38 and 39 of the Canada Evidence Act legislates the regime for objecting to the disclosure of information. Then an application should be made for further disclosure from defense counsel, where a court might otherwise compel its production. The duty on the part of the Crown to provide disclosure to an accused person. The Crown counsels discretion with respect to both the timing of disclosure and the withholding of information for valid purposes, including the protection of police informers, cabinet confidences and national security, international relations and national defense information (King, 2014). The only exception to informer privilege is innocence at stake. Reference de Vries, J. (2014). Privilege and Limitations: The Impact of Raising the Discoverability of Claims on Solicitor-Client Privilege. Dos Santos v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, 2005 BCCA 4 Garland, N. (2014). Criminal evidence. McGraw-Hill Higher Education. King, C. (2014). Belief evidence and informer privilege: revisited in Strasbourg. The International Journal of Evidence Proof, 18(4), 340-352. Murphy, G. (2015). Solicitorclient privilege. Physicians of British Columbia v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2002 BCCA 665 Sauv v. ICBC, 2010 BCSC 763