R. v. Chen

R. v. Chen

After discounting misleading or omitted assertions, the affidavit nonetheless contained reliable evidence and permissible inferences that private communications interception was necessary to corroborate undercover admissions and to identify and capture communications with suppliers/recipients that conventional techniques could not reliably produce; therefore the authorizing judge could have been satisfied that investigative necessity was met and Authorization P5 was valid. Although there were reasonable grounds to invoke s.186(1.1), that subsection could not be applied retroactively where the authorizing judge was not specifically informed and invited to decide on that basis.

Citation
2019 BCSC 2237
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Stephen Hai Chen
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Voir Dire Regarding Interception Authorization / Pre Trial Voir Dire/review of Authorization P5/2015
Outcome
Authorization P5/2015 upheld and declared valid
Legal Topics
Interception of Private Communications, Investigative Necessity, S.186(1.1) Criminal Code, Definition of Criminal Organization, Voir Dire Review, Disclosure and Cross Examination
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Search and Seizure Organized Crime Charter S.8 Controlled Drugs and Substances Act Interception of Private Communications Investigative Necessity +4 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 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Stephen Hai Chen

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Voir Dire Regarding Interception Authorization / Pre Trial Voir Dire/review of Authorization P5/2015

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the affidavit satisfied the statutory requirement of investigative necessity for a s.186 authorization
  2. 2 Whether there were reasonable grounds to believe the offences were committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization such that s.186(1.1) applied
  3. 3 Whether omissions or misleading statements in the affidavit and failure to invoke s.186(1.1) invalidated the authorization

Ratio Decidendi

After discounting misleading or omitted assertions, the affidavit nonetheless contained reliable evidence and permissible inferences that private communications interception was necessary to corroborate undercover admissions and to identify and capture communications with suppliers/recipients that conventional techniques could not reliably produce; therefore the authorizing judge could have been satisfied that investigative necessity was met and Authorization P5 was valid. Although there were reasonable grounds to invoke s.186(1.1), that subsection could not be applied retroactively where the authorizing judge was not specifically informed and invited to decide on that basis.

Court Disposition

Authorization P5/2015 upheld and declared valid

Orders

  • Authorization P5 is valid