R. v. Chesson

R. v. Chesson

The Court held the covert installation of a battery‑powered transmitter in the vehicle was authorized by Part IV.1 and by the terms of the judicial authorization and thus lawful for admissibility purposes; however Vanweenan was a 'known' person under s.178.12(1)(e) and, not being named in the authorization, her intercepted communications were unlawfully obtained and inadmissible, so her acquittal was restored while Chesson's conviction was vacated and a new trial ordered.

Citation
[1988] 2 SCR 148
Parties
Appellant: Lorelei Vanweenan; Appellant: John Chesson; Respondent: Her Majesty The Queen
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 September 1988
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Alberta Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part: Vanweenan appeal allowed and acquittal restored; Chesson appeal dismissed and order for new trial affirmed
Legal Topics
Interception of Private Communications, Admissibility of Intercepted Evidence, Judicial Authorization Under Part Iv.1, Basket Clause (known V. Unknown Persons), Use of Battery‑powered Listening Devices, Least Intrusive Entry Doctrine
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Privacy Law Evidence Law Search and Seizure Wiretap Law Interception of Private Communications Admissibility of Intercepted Evidence Judicial Authorization Under Part Iv.1 +3 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lorelei Vanweenan

Appellant

John Chesson

Appellant

Her Majesty The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Alberta Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether surreptitious installation in a vehicle of a battery‑powered listening device by police is an unlawful interception
  2. 2 Whether a person not named in a judicial authorization qualifies as a 'known' or 'unknown' person under s.178.12(1)(e) for the purpose of the basket clause
  3. 3 Whether interceptions of an unnamed person's communications made during conversations with lawfully intercepted persons are admissible

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the covert installation of a battery‑powered transmitter in the vehicle was authorized by Part IV.1 and by the terms of the judicial authorization and thus lawful for admissibility purposes; however Vanweenan was a 'known' person under s.178.12(1)(e) and, not being named in the authorization, her intercepted communications were unlawfully obtained and inadmissible, so her acquittal was restored while Chesson's conviction was vacated and a new trial ordered.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part: Vanweenan appeal allowed and acquittal restored; Chesson appeal dismissed and order for new trial affirmed

Orders

  • Chesson's acquittal overturned; new trial ordered