R. v. Chow

R. v. Chow

Intercepted communications are non-conscriptive and their admission would not affect trial fairness, but the Court found multiple serious s.8 breaches from 11 invalid authorizations, systemic overreach and prolonged, indiscriminate interception; on balance the admission of the intercepted communications would bring the administration of justice into disrepute and therefore the evidence must be excluded.

Citation
2002 BCSC 1293
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Kwok Cheung Simon Chow aka Simon Chow; Accused: Wilson Wong; Accused: David Tai Wai Au; Accused: Kwok Chung Tam; Accused: Wall Yip Yeung; Accused: Liem Thanh Nguy; Accused: Pei Tien Liu aka Barry Liu; Accused: Vicker Seto; Accused: Quinn Alexander Vallance; Accused: Chi Hang Chan aka Chi Hong Chan
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 September 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Conspiracy and Related Offences / Voir Dire Ruling on Admissibility of Intercepted Communications
Outcome
Admission of the intercepted private communications would bring the administration of justice into disrepute and the communications are to be excluded; authorizations declared invalid
Legal Topics
Electronic Surveillance, Wiretap Evidence, Charter S.8 Search and Seizure, Exclusion of Evidence (collins Test), Conscriptive Vs Non Conscriptive Evidence, Investigative Necessity
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Law Privacy Law Electronic Surveillance Wiretap Evidence Charter S.8 Search and Seizure Exclusion of Evidence (collins Test) +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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Kwok Cheung Simon Chow aka Simon Chow

Accused

Wilson Wong

Accused

David Tai Wai Au

Accused

Kwok Chung Tam

Accused

Wall Yip Yeung

Accused

Liem Thanh Nguy

Accused

Pei Tien Liu aka Barry Liu

Accused

Vicker Seto

Accused

Quinn Alexander Vallance

Accused

Chi Hang Chan aka Chi Hong Chan

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Conspiracy and Related Offences / Voir Dire Ruling on Admissibility of Intercepted Communications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Are illegally intercepted private communications conscriptive evidence?
  2. 2 Would admission of intercepted communications render the trial unfair?
  3. 3 Was there a serious s.8 Charter breach?

Ratio Decidendi

Intercepted communications are non-conscriptive and their admission would not affect trial fairness, but the Court found multiple serious s.8 breaches from 11 invalid authorizations, systemic overreach and prolonged, indiscriminate interception; on balance the admission of the intercepted communications would bring the administration of justice into disrepute and therefore the evidence must be excluded.

Court Disposition

Admission of the intercepted private communications would bring the administration of justice into disrepute and the communications are to be excluded; authorizations declared invalid

Orders

  • Intercepted communications obtained under the eleven invalid authorizations are inadmissible in the trial
  • Eleven judicial authorizations for electronic interception declared invalid