R. v. Six Accused Persons

R. v. Six Accused Persons

Section 184.4, as enacted, breaches s.8 of the Charter because it permits warrantless interception without sufficient safeguards (notably absence of notice and reporting/accountability) and cannot be justified under s.1; however the Court construes s.184.4 narrowly (unlawful act limited to offences in s.183; intercepts limited to communications involving perpetrator or victim/intended victim; officers must implement only necessary interceptions and immediately seek judicial authorization) and declares the provision invalid but stays the declaration for the longer of 18 months or 30 days after resolution of the charges to allow Parliamentary response; Attorney General may seek extension.

Citation
2008 BCSC 212
Parties
Crown: Regina; Intervener: Attorney General of Canada; Accused: Six Accused Persons
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Constitutional Challenge to Evidence Gathering Provision (wiretap) / Pre Trial Voir Dire / Ruling on Constitutional Validity of S.184.4 Criminal Code (no Jury Empanelled)
Outcome
Section 184.4 Criminal Code declared constitutionally invalid under s.8 Charter; declaration stayed pending legislative or executive response
Legal Topics
S.184.4 Criminal Code, Wiretap Law, Exigent Circumstances, Charter S.8 Search and Seizure, Vagueness, Overbreadth, S.1 Oakes Analysis, Remedies and Stays
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Administrative Law Privacy Law Evidence Law S.184.4 Criminal Code Wiretap Law Exigent Circumstances +5 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 6 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Attorney General of Canada

Intervener

Six Accused Persons

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Constitutional Challenge to Evidence Gathering Provision (wiretap) / Pre Trial Voir Dire / Ruling on Constitutional Validity of S.184.4 Criminal Code (no Jury Empanelled)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.184.4 is void for vagueness
  2. 2 Whether s.184.4 is overly broad
  3. 3 Whether s.184.4 violates s.8 Charter right against unreasonable search and seizure

Ratio Decidendi

Section 184.4, as enacted, breaches s.8 of the Charter because it permits warrantless interception without sufficient safeguards (notably absence of notice and reporting/accountability) and cannot be justified under s.1; however the Court construes s.184.4 narrowly (unlawful act limited to offences in s.183; intercepts limited to communications involving perpetrator or victim/intended victim; officers must implement only necessary interceptions and immediately seek judicial authorization) and declares the provision invalid but stays the declaration for the longer of 18 months or 30 days after resolution of the charges to allow Parliamentary response; Attorney General may seek extension.

Court Disposition

Section 184.4 Criminal Code declared constitutionally invalid under s.8 Charter; declaration stayed pending legislative or executive response

Orders

  • Declaration that s.184.4 of the Criminal Code is constitutionally invalid under s.52 by reason of contravening s.8 of the Charter
  • Stay of the declaration for the longer of either 18 months or 30 days after resolution of the charges in this proceeding; Attorney General for Canada has liberty to apply to extend the stay