CRIME STOPPERS' SUCCESS BUILT ON CONFIDENTIALITY

A Supreme Court Ruling Not Only Protects The Identity Of Informants,
It Also Protects Information Revealed In A Tip

Not only are Crime Stoppers tipsters anonymous, but the contents of
their tips are also kept secret. The organization went all the way to
the Supreme Court of Canada to win the right to refuse to reveal, even
in court, information from a tip.

The landmark case was won in 1997, successfully argued in part by
Victoria lawyer Robert Gill, longtime legal counsel for Victoria Crime
Stoppers, who had intervener status. It marked his only trip to the
top court and he was happy to work the day without pay.

Gill still talks about the decision around the world, noting that not
every country in the Crime Stoppers fold defines this protection as
clearly as Canada.

"Crime Stoppers will go to the wall to invoke every legal avenue
possible to refuse to produce anything from a tip," Gill says. That's
because it's impossible to tell what part of a tip could identify a
tipster in the mind of the accused.

"The Supreme Court agreed with that and for that reason said nothing
in the tip should be released," says Gill, who has been on the Crime
Stoppers board since 1986.

The case revolved around Richard Dean Leipert, a Vancouverite charged
with growing marijuana in 1995. When Leipert challenged the search
warrant, it was learned that a police officer went to his residence
because of a Crime Stoppers tip, although a drug-sniffing dog taken
along perked up and the officer noted barred windows before getting
the warrant.

Leipert was acquitted in B.C. provincial court after the Crown refused
to agree to the judge's request to give an edited version of the tip
to the defence and instead abandoned the case.

The Crown had the acquittal overturned in the B.C. Court of Appeal but
Leipert appealed to the Supreme Court, trying to restore his
acquittal. He had originally argued that he couldn't attack the
validity of the warrant -- which ultimately led to the discovery of
nearly nine kilograms of marijuana -- without the tip.

"The Supreme Court of Canada agreed with us -- 9-0 -- that he should
not be allowed to see the tip and that he should be convicted anyway
because there was enough evidence to support the search warrant"
regardless of the Crime Stoppers tip, Gill says.

The Supreme Court ordered a new trial for Leipert but Gill has never
followed up on how he fared.

"Crime Stoppers very carefully never takes a position on guilt or
innocence. That's not our issue," Gill says. "Our issue is only, is
there enough evidence to lead to arrest and if there's an arrest, we
pay our reward and close our file."

On the other hand, if an accused can show his innocence is at stake --
that there's something in the tip that would support reasonable doubt
- -- then the judge may read the tip, but only at that point, Gill
explains. And if a judge decides to release part of the tip to the
defence, the Crown must first be offered a chance to stop the
proceedings.

"The Crown will withdraw (charges) rather than risk revealing the
identity of informants," Gill says. As far as he knows, only a handful
of judges have viewed Crime Stoppers tips since then.