R. v. Russell

R. v. Russell

The Crown cannot use amplification to introduce a wholesale book of investigatory materials to show the full state of the investigation or to retroactively justify an interception authorization; only a limited scope of rebuttal evidence is permitted to supplement defence documents that are incomplete or ambiguous, and documents tendered solely to show absence of Russell's name are inadmissible.

Citation
2012 BCSC 1454
Parties
Crown: Regina; Applicant/accused: Daniel Ronald Russell; Accused: Yong Sung John Lee; Accused: Dilun Heng; Accused: Barzan Tilli-Choli; Accused: Karwan Ahmet Saed; Accused: Ion Kroitoru also known as John William Croitoru
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 September 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Voir Dire on Admissibility of Crown Documents and Interception Authorization / Oral Ruling on Admissibility During Pre Trial Voir Dire
Outcome
Crown's broader application to admit the book 'Re: Russell as a known' largely denied; limited admission permitted for certain tabs that supplement defence disclosure; Crown withdrew tab 1.
Legal Topics
Amplification of Affidavit, Known Person Disclosure, Authorization to Intercept Private Communications, Admissibility of Crown Rebuttal Evidence
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Evidence Law Wiretap/interception Amplification of Affidavit Known Person Disclosure Authorization to Intercept Private Communications Admissibility of Crown Rebuttal Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Daniel Ronald Russell

Applicant/accused

Yong Sung John Lee

Accused

Dilun Heng

Accused

Barzan Tilli-Choli

Accused

Karwan Ahmet Saed

Accused

Ion Kroitoru also known as John William Croitoru

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Voir Dire on Admissibility of Crown Documents and Interception Authorization / Oral Ruling on Admissibility During Pre Trial Voir Dire

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Crown may amplify an affidavit by introducing extensive police investigatory documents to rebut defence disclosure
  2. 2 Whether Daniel Russell was a 'known person' within the meaning of s.185(e) of the Criminal Code at the time of the interception authorization
  3. 3 Scope and limits of amplification on judicial review of interception authorizations

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown cannot use amplification to introduce a wholesale book of investigatory materials to show the full state of the investigation or to retroactively justify an interception authorization; only a limited scope of rebuttal evidence is permitted to supplement defence documents that are incomplete or ambiguous, and documents tendered solely to show absence of Russell's name are inadmissible.

Court Disposition

Crown's broader application to admit the book 'Re: Russell as a known' largely denied; limited admission permitted for certain tabs that supplement defence disclosure; Crown withdrew tab 1.

Orders

  • Crown may tender materials at tabs 2 and 3 to supplement defence disclosure where those materials are incomplete or ambiguous
  • Crown is not permitted to tender documents merely to show that Russell's name does not appear as a target in investigatory files or orders