R. v. Mai and Tang

R. v. Mai and Tang

The accused had a reasonable expectation of privacy and standing; the warrant was valid after amplification and expungement of minor errors, but police entry violated s.8 because they forced entry after only one to two seconds following announcement (insufficient under the knock‑and‑announce rule) with no exigent...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2005 BCSC 29
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Li Qing Mai; Accused: Zhi Wen Tang
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 January 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Voir Dire on S.8 and S.24(2) Charter Application
Outcome
Acquitted on all charges
Legal Topics
Section 8 Charter, Section 24(2) Charter, Search Warrant Validity, Knock and Announce Rule, Exclusion of Evidence Under Charter, Drug Offences (marihuana Production and Trafficking), Theft of Electricity
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Search and Seizure Section 8 Charter Section 24(2) Charter Search Warrant Validity Knock and Announce Rule +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Li Qing Mai

Accused

Zhi Wen Tang

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Voir Dire on S.8 and S.24(2) Charter Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the accused have a reasonable expectation of privacy (standing) for the premises?
  2. 2 Was the search warrant valid on the information provided?
  3. 3 Did police comply with the knock‑and‑announce rule and execute the warrant reasonably?

Ratio Decidendi

The accused had a reasonable expectation of privacy and standing; the warrant was valid after amplification and expungement of minor errors, but police entry violated s.8 because they forced entry after only one to two seconds following announcement (insufficient under the knock‑and‑announce rule) with no exigent circumstances or adequate officer‑safety justification; the breach was serious and not in good faith, evidence was excluded under s.24(2), and the accused were acquitted.

Court Disposition

Acquitted on all charges

Orders

  • Evidence discovered in the search excluded under s.24(2) of the Charter
  • Search warrant held valid after amplification/expungement of specific impugned statements