Print document
 80 of 94 
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: Yes, Chippie. They kept saying things like, “I want the usual from
Chippie” or however many grains it was.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: That is directly, you say, similar to the example that we all apparently
thought up together, or rather apart.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: Our case is rather like Woodhouse v. Hall, the massage parlour,
where the police officers gave evidence that the ladies offered various relief services. The ladies
were not called. The Crown having to prove that it was being managed as a brothel, this was
tendered as evidence to show that it was being run as a brothel in just the same way.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: That was admissible?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: That was admissible, yes.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: It did not go to the crucial question as to whether it was Woodhouse or
the other; I do not remember who the appellant was in that case.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: I cannot remember.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: Actually concerned in the management of the brothel.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: It showed the nature of the services being offered, just as if they put
a board up outside “Relief massage ?15 a time” or whatever it was, looked at in the ----
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: As far as R. v. Kearley is concerned, the mischief was the mention of
Chippie rather than the mention of drugs.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: Well there were a number of -- the Crown were essentially relying
on the truth of the implication of what had been asserted, i.e. ----
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: The Crown were saying people at the other end would not have said,
“We want some drugs off Chippie” unless Chippie was supplying drugs.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: That is the implication of what they said, and the Crown were not
able to call the people making that assertion, only the police officers who heard it. So, although the
Crown sought to argue that it was a Woodhouse v. Hall case, the majority held that it was not; that
it was not being adduced as original evidence of the nature of the transaction but it was sought to be
used to prove the truth of that which was being asserted by the person not being called, i.e. by the
caller, namely, “I get my drugs from Chippie, the defendant”, and that was the vice to which the
majority -- I mean, our case, just to vary Kearley is more as if one of the 17 or so callers had in fact
been called to say, “The defendant did offer me drugs before and that’s why I ran.” That is more the
nature of what we are seeking to do here. It is far removed from Kearley. There is another objection
in Kearley.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: You say this is original evidence to show how a Russian case officer,
who happens in this case to be Viktor Oschenko, runs his agents.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: Rather than evidence -- well now, it is not rather than evidence to show