R. v. Hernandez

R. v. Hernandez

The court corrected its prior characterization: calls intercepted under s.184.4 were obtained in breach but are admissible pursuant to s.24(2); calls intercepted under P18 and P19 were not obtained in breach and are therefore admissible without resort to s.24(2); this correction does not change the admissibility...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2008 BCSC 1477
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Jose Hernandez; Accused: Anh The Nguyen; Accused: Joshua Ponicappo; Accused: Sam Tuan Vu; Accused: Van Van Vu
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 August 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Voir Dire (electronic Surveillance) Addendum to Pre Trial Ruling
Outcome
Court corrected earlier ruling: not all Nguyen calls were obtained in breach; calls under s.184.4 were obtained in breach but admitted under s.24(2); calls under P18 and P19 were not in breach and are admissible.
Legal Topics
Electronic Surveillance, Wiretap Authorizations, Section 184.4, Section 24(2) Charter, Publication Ban, Inherent Jurisdiction
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Law Procedural Law Electronic Surveillance Wiretap Authorizations Section 184.4 Section 24(2) Charter +2 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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Jose Hernandez

Accused

Anh The Nguyen

Accused

Joshua Ponicappo

Accused

Sam Tuan Vu

Accused

Van Van Vu

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Voir Dire (electronic Surveillance) Addendum to Pre Trial Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether calls intercepted pursuant to s.184.4 were obtained in breach of the Charter
  2. 2 Whether Nguyen calls intercepted pursuant to P18 and P19 were obtained in breach
  3. 3 Whether intercepted calls are admissible under s.24(2) of the Charter

Ratio Decidendi

The court corrected its prior characterization: calls intercepted under s.184.4 were obtained in breach but are admissible pursuant to s.24(2); calls intercepted under P18 and P19 were not obtained in breach and are therefore admissible without resort to s.24(2); this correction does not change the admissibility outcomes previously stated.

Court Disposition

Court corrected earlier ruling: not all Nguyen calls were obtained in breach; calls under s.184.4 were obtained in breach but admitted under s.24(2); calls under P18 and P19 were not in breach and are admissible.

Orders

  • Ban on publication identifying Witness X and Witness Y pursuant to Criminal Code s.486.5(1) and the Court's inherent jurisdiction
  • Ban on publication identifying Mr. Z pursuant to statute and the Court's inherent jurisdiction