R v Khalid (No. 2)

In the matter of R v Khalid (No. 2), the respondent, Khalid, was charged with being in possession of documents connected with the preparation for a terrorist act knowing of that connection. The respondent was arrested and searched pursuant to two search warrants which had been obtained by police officers. The Crown sought to adduce evidence obtained in the execution of the warrants as well as evidence of two videos and a television program in which the respondent expressed certain ideological views. The respondent objected to the admissibility of the evidence on the basis that the warrants were invalid and the evidence was tainted. The respondent also objected to the admissibility of the video and television program evidence on the basis that their probative value was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The respondent’s objections were heard by the trial judge who ruled that the warrants were invalid but that the evidence obtained in the execution of the warrants was admissible. The trial judge also ruled that the video and television program evidence was admissible. The respondent appealed against the trial judge’s rulings.

The central issue for the court was whether the evidence obtained in the execution of the warrants should be admitted despite the invalidity of the warrants. The court was also required to determine whether the probative value of the video and television program evidence was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The court was required to interpret s. 138 of the Evidence Act 1995 (“the EA”) in light of the respondent’s objection to the admissibility of the evidence obtained in the execution of the warrants. The court was required to determine whether the evidence obtained in the execution of the warrants was relevant and whether its probative value outweighed the undesirability of admitting the evidence. The court was required to determine whether the probative value of the video and television program evidence was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

The court found that the warrants were invalid because the police had failed to comply with a relevant statutory provision. The court found that the failure to comply with the statutory provision was neither conscious nor reckless. The court found that the failure to comply with the statutory provision had no effect on the cogency or reliability of the evidence. The court found that the probative value of the evidence was high. The court found that the Crown’s evidence did not permit a finding of agency existing between the police officers who obtained the warrants and the police officers who executed the warrants. The court found that the statute reflected an intention on the part of the Parliament that there be strict compliance with the statutory provision. However, the court found that the statute did not reflect an intention on the part of the Parliament that the warrants would be invalid in the event that there was non-compliance with the statutory provision. The court found that s. 138 of the EA required it to take into account the probative value of the evidence and the importance of the evidence in the proceeding. The court found that the factors set out in s. 138(3) weighed heavily in favour of the admission of the evidence. The court found that the probative value of the video and television program evidence was not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The court found that the evidence was relevant and that its probative value outweighed any danger of unfair prejudice.

The court allowed the respondent’s appeal in part. The court quashed the convictions and ordered a retrial. The court held that the evidence obtained in the execution of the warrants was inadmissible. The court held that the video and television program evidence was admissible.