R. v. Liew

R. v. Liew

Majority held the statements were not actively elicited because the accused initiated the conversation and the officer’s interventions followed its flow without exploiting a relationship or coercing the accused; therefore no s.7 violation occurred and the evidence was admissible, so the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[1999] 3 SCR 227
Parties
Appellant/accused: Kok Leong Liew; Respondent/crown: Her Majesty The Queen
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 September 1999
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (charter S.7) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Alberta Court of Appeal; Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; order of the Alberta Court of Appeal allowing the Crown’s appeal and ordering a new trial upheld.
Legal Topics
Right to Silence, Undercover Operations, Elicitation, Section 7 Charter, Section 24(2) Exclusion, Right to Counsel
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Charter Rights Right to Silence Undercover Operations Elicitation Section 7 Charter Section 24(2) Exclusion +1 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kok Leong Liew

Appellant/accused

Her Majesty The Queen

Respondent/crown

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (charter S.7) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Alberta Court of Appeal; Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether statements made to an undercover officer were actively elicited in violation of the accused’s s.7 right to silence
  2. 2 Whether an atmosphere of oppression is required to establish active elicitation
  3. 3 Whether statements obtained in the cell block should be excluded under s.24(2) of the Charter

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held the statements were not actively elicited because the accused initiated the conversation and the officer’s interventions followed its flow without exploiting a relationship or coercing the accused; therefore no s.7 violation occurred and the evidence was admissible, so the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; order of the Alberta Court of Appeal allowing the Crown’s appeal and ordering a new trial upheld.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; the Court of Appeal’s order allowing the Crown’s appeal and ordering a new trial stands.