R. v. Russell

R. v. Russell

The court held that there is a reasonable likelihood a voir dire will assist in determining investigative necessity for wiretap P66 and whether the ITO contained full, fair and frank disclosure; accordingly a voir dire was declared and cross-examination of the affiant was authorized on specified topics, subject to curtailment if prolix.

Citation
2012 BCSC 931
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Daniel Ronald Russell; Accused: Yong Sung John Lee; Accused: Dilun Heng; Accused: Barzan Tilli-Choli; Accused: Karwan Ahmet Saed; Accused: Ion Kroitoru
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Wiretap Authorization/ito Disclosure / Pre Trial Voir Dire on Wiretap Authorization (p66) and Adequacy of ITO Disclosure
Outcome
Voir dire declared on issues of investigative necessity for wiretap authorization P66 and adequacy of ITO disclosure; cross-examination of the affiant authorized in specified areas; publication ban under s.648(1) until jury verdict.
Legal Topics
Wiretap Authorization, Investigative Necessity, Full, Fair and Frank Disclosure, Information to Obtain (ito), Cross Examination, Voir Dire
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Constitutional Law Search and Seizure Wiretap Authorization Investigative Necessity Full, Fair and Frank Disclosure Information to Obtain (ito) +2 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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Daniel Ronald Russell

Accused

Yong Sung John Lee

Accused

Dilun Heng

Accused

Barzan Tilli-Choli

Accused

Karwan Ahmet Saed

Accused

Ion Kroitoru

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Wiretap Authorization/ito Disclosure / Pre Trial Voir Dire on Wiretap Authorization (p66) and Adequacy of ITO Disclosure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a voir dire is necessary to determine investigative necessity for wiretap authorization P66
  2. 2 Whether the Information to Obtain (ITO) contained full, fair and frank disclosure in relation to P66
  3. 3 Whether cross-examination of the affiant on specified investigative matters will assist the Court

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that there is a reasonable likelihood a voir dire will assist in determining investigative necessity for wiretap P66 and whether the ITO contained full, fair and frank disclosure; accordingly a voir dire was declared and cross-examination of the affiant was authorized on specified topics, subject to curtailment if prolix.

Court Disposition

Voir dire declared on issues of investigative necessity for wiretap authorization P66 and adequacy of ITO disclosure; cross-examination of the affiant authorized in specified areas; publication ban under s.648(1) until jury verdict.

Orders

  • Voir dire declared to determine investigative necessity for P66 and whether the ITO disclosed all material information
  • Cross-examination of the affiant authorized on the enumerated areas and paragraphs of the ITO listed by the Court