R. v. Chan

R. v. Chan

Section 189(5)(b) requires disclosure of the time, place, date and parties of intercepted communications 'if known'; the Crown met that obligation by disclosing the place where it was known and was not obliged to obtain cell‑site records from third parties simply because the technology existed; therefore the notice was valid and the intercepted communications were admissible.

Citation
2001 BCSC 892
Parties
Crown: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN; Accused: HO MING SAMMY CHAN; Accused: JOSE ESTRELLA MORALES; Accused: KEN CHAN QUOC TRAN
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 June 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal: Conspiracy to Traffic Cocaine / Voir Dire on Admissibility Under S.189(5)(b) (pre Trial)
Outcome
Notice under s.189(5)(b) upheld as valid; evidence from lawful interceptions admissible
Legal Topics
Interception of Private Communications, Section 189(5)(b) Notice Requirements, Admissibility of Intercepted Communications, Cell Site Location Data, Disclosure Obligations
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Telecommunications Privacy Procedure Interception of Private Communications Section 189(5)(b) Notice Requirements Admissibility of Intercepted Communications +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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Crown

HO MING SAMMY CHAN

Accused

JOSE ESTRELLA MORALES

Accused

KEN CHAN QUOC TRAN

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal: Conspiracy to Traffic Cocaine / Voir Dire on Admissibility Under S.189(5)(b) (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.189(5)(b) requires the Crown to obtain and disclose cell‑site location data from third parties where technology exists to do so
  2. 2 What is the meaning and scope of the phrase 'if known' in s.189(5)(b)
  3. 3 Whether failure to obtain readily ascertainable information renders notice invalid and evidence inadmissible

Ratio Decidendi

Section 189(5)(b) requires disclosure of the time, place, date and parties of intercepted communications 'if known'; the Crown met that obligation by disclosing the place where it was known and was not obliged to obtain cell‑site records from third parties simply because the technology existed; therefore the notice was valid and the intercepted communications were admissible.

Court Disposition

Notice under s.189(5)(b) upheld as valid; evidence from lawful interceptions admissible

Orders

  • Declaration that the s.189(5)(b) notices served were valid
  • Ruling that the evidence obtained from the 126 intercepted communications is admissible