R. v. Lee et al.

R. v. Lee et al.

The court held that affidavits must provide particulars and an objectively credible basis to believe that interception will afford evidence of a particular offence; speculative hope that a primary target may discuss a possible future offence is insufficient, therefore portions of P14/98 and P30/98 authorizing interception of See Chun Lee as a primary target were invalid. By contrast, given corroboration, surveillance and congruent informant material, and the minimized scope for secondary targets, the naming of Gou Din Ho as a secondary target and the investigative necessity for the broader Project EIDER interceptions were properly supported and upheld.

Citation
2001 BCSC 1649
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: See Chun Lee; Accused: Gou Din Ho; Accused: Chuk Fong Tao; Accused: Wei Bo Chen; Accused: Chak Nam Chan; Accused: Siu Wan Chau; Accused: Cheung Hung
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 November 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application to Quash Wiretap/part VI Authorizations / Application Hearing and Reasons Following Voir Dire and Cross Examination of Affiant
Outcome
Partial allowance of the application: authorizations partially quashed in relation to See Chun Lee; remainder of authorizations and inclusion of Gou Din Ho as a secondary target upheld; investigative necessity upheld for the investigation as a whole.
Legal Topics
Interception of Private Communications, Wiretap Authorization, Informant Reliability, Investigative Necessity, Reasonable and Probable Grounds, Prospective Offences, Surveillance, Drug Trafficking, Minimization/primary Vs Secondary Targets
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Privacy Law Controlled Substances Law Constitutional Law Interception of Private Communications Wiretap Authorization Informant Reliability +6 more

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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

See Chun Lee

Accused

Gou Din Ho

Accused

Chuk Fong Tao

Accused

Wei Bo Chen

Accused

Chak Nam Chan

Accused

Siu Wan Chau

Accused

Cheung Hung

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Application to Quash Wiretap/part VI Authorizations / Application Hearing and Reasons Following Voir Dire and Cross Examination of Affiant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether affidavits supporting authorizations P14/98 and P30/98 established reasonable and probable grounds in relation to See Chun Lee and Gou Din Ho
  2. 2 Whether the affidavits established investigative necessity under s.186(1)(b) of the Criminal Code for the interception authorizations
  3. 3 Whether prospective offences may justify interception and what particularity is required

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that affidavits must provide particulars and an objectively credible basis to believe that interception will afford evidence of a particular offence; speculative hope that a primary target may discuss a possible future offence is insufficient, therefore portions of P14/98 and P30/98 authorizing interception of See Chun Lee as a primary target were invalid. By contrast, given corroboration, surveillance and congruent informant material, and the minimized scope for secondary targets, the naming of Gou Din Ho as a secondary target and the investigative necessity for the broader Project EIDER interceptions were properly supported and upheld.

Court Disposition

Partial allowance of the application: authorizations partially quashed in relation to See Chun Lee; remainder of authorizations and inclusion of Gou Din Ho as a secondary target upheld; investigative necessity upheld for the investigation as a whole.

Orders

  • Paragraph (c) of P14/98 insofar as it relates to See Chun Lee is invalid
  • Paragraph (d)(i) of P14/98 is invalid