R v Saurav Mahay

The appellant, Saurav Mahay, was convicted of a crime involving a specially aggravated detention for ransom, following a jury trial. The prosecution sought to introduce intercepted telephone calls as evidence against Mahay, although he was not a party to one of the intercepted calls. The Crown sought to tender the calls against Mahay as admissions, arguing that what was said was in furtherance of a common purpose. The legal issue before the court was whether the evidence of the intercepted telephone calls was admissible, and if so, which of the calls were admissible. The court considered the meaning of 'in furtherance of' and 'reasonably open' in the context of the evidence.

The court found that the meaning of 'in furtherance of' required a closer connection between the statement and the common purpose than merely being consistent with it. The court held that the evidence of the first call was not to be admitted as it did not meet this standard. However, the balance of the calls were admissible as they were reasonably open to be considered as being in furtherance of the common purpose. The court held that the meaning of 'reasonably open' referred to whether it was reasonably open to a person considering the evidence to conclude that the statement was in furtherance of the common purpose.

The court determined that the evidence of the first call was not to be admitted as it did not meet the standard of being in furtherance of the common purpose. The court held that the balance of the calls were admissible as they were reasonably open to be considered as being in furtherance of the common purpose. The court ordered that evidence of the first call not be admitted, while the balance of the calls were admissible.