R. v. Mastop

R. v. Mastop

The court held that the Chesson test applies in principle to practicing solicitors; s.186(2) is a relevant factor but does not displace the Chesson test. On the available evidence there was a credibly based probability from the outset that interception of the applicant's non-privileged communications could assist the investigation, and therefore the applicant met the Chesson test and should have been named as a known person when authorizations were issued.

Citation
2012 BCSC 2085
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused/applicant: William Jacob Mastop
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Wiretap/part VI Authorizations / Voir Dire on Admissibility of Intercepted Communications (oral Ruling)
Outcome
The court found the applicant met the Chesson test and was a 'known person' when the Part VI authorizations were issued; s.186(2) does not displace the Chesson test for practicing solicitors.
Legal Topics
Part VI Authorizations, Known Person, Section 186(2), Solicitor Client Privilege, Section 8 Charter, Criminal Organization Offence, Admissibility of Intercepted Communications
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Privacy Solicitor Client Privilege Search and Seizure Wiretap/interception Part VI Authorizations +5 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 6 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

William Jacob Mastop

Accused/applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Wiretap/part VI Authorizations / Voir Dire on Admissibility of Intercepted Communications (oral Ruling)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was a 'known person' under ss.185(1)(e) and 186(4)(c) when authorizations were issued
  2. 2 Whether the Chesson test applies to a practicing solicitor or is displaced by s.186(2)
  3. 3 Whether s.186(2) requires reasonable grounds that a solicitor was party to an offence before naming

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Chesson test applies in principle to practicing solicitors; s.186(2) is a relevant factor but does not displace the Chesson test. On the available evidence there was a credibly based probability from the outset that interception of the applicant's non-privileged communications could assist the investigation, and therefore the applicant met the Chesson test and should have been named as a known person when authorizations were issued.

Court Disposition

The court found the applicant met the Chesson test and was a 'known person' when the Part VI authorizations were issued; s.186(2) does not displace the Chesson test for practicing solicitors.

Orders

  • Applicant's challenge on known person succeeded
  • Intercepted communications involving the applicant should have been identified in the authorizations and were intercepted without the required identification; those communications are to be treated as lacking proper authorization for the purposes of admissibility