R v Diallo (No 5)

The respondents, Diallo and another, were charged with the murder of two police officers. The officers were ambushed and shot after responding to a call for assistance. The respondents were captured and charged. The case against them hinged on the admissibility of certain covertly recorded conversations between the respondents and their legal representatives. The trial judge made seventeen evidentiary rulings, all of which were upheld on appeal. The primary appeal concerned the admissibility of the covert recordings and the trial judge's direction to the jury concerning the weight to be given to the fact that the recordings were made while the respondents were in police custody.

The primary appeal concerned the admissibility of the covert recordings and the trial judge's direction to the jury concerning the weight to be given to the fact that the recordings were made while the respondents were in police custody. The appeal also concerned the trial judge's refusal to admit certain evidence. The respondents argued that the trial judge erred in admitting the covert recordings, in not admitting certain evidence, and in his direction to the jury about the weight to be given to the fact that the recordings were made while the respondents were in police custody. The Crown argued that the trial judge had correctly exercised his discretion in admitting the covert recordings and in refusing to admit certain evidence, and that his direction to the jury was appropriate.

The appeal was dismissed. The covert recordings were properly admitted. The probative value of the recordings was very high. The recordings contained admissions that the respondents had killed the police officers. The recordings were properly admitted because the danger of unfair prejudice was not substantial. The trial judge had correctly exercised his discretion. The trial judge was also correct in refusing to admit certain evidence, including certain evidence of the respondents' state of mind, and evidence of the respondents' post-arrest silence. The direction to the jury about the weight to be given to the fact that the recordings were made while the respondents were in police custody was also appropriate.

There were no orders concerning the costs of the appeal.