R. v. Lee

R. v. Lee

The court held that Authorization P9/2000 was not invalidated by Constable Kwok's failure to disclose his belief because that failure did not fundamentally impair the court's ability to review the authorization nor materially mislead the authorizing judge; the precondition of investigative necessity under s.186(1)(b) could have been found given evidence of ongoing and impending heroin importation and trafficking; the credible probability standard was satisfied for See Chun Lee as a secondary target based on association and intercepted calls; however P9/2000 was invalid insofar as it named Chen (Ben, Chen Wei Bo) as a primary target because the evidence did not establish sufficient basis...

Citation
2002 BCSC 1929
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant: See Chun Lee; Defendant: Chuk Fong Tao; Defendant: Wei Bo Chen; Defendant: Chak Nam Chan; Defendant: Siu Wah Chau; Defendant: Cheung Hung
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 August 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Voir Dire / Ruling on Validity of Wiretap Authorization (p9/2000)
Outcome
Authorization P9/2000 upheld in all respects except that it is invalid insofar as it named Chen (Chen Wei Bo, "Ben") as a primary target; no excision ordered nor was the authorization otherwise vitiated for nondisclosure by Constable Kwok.
Legal Topics
Authorization Under S.186 Criminal Code, Investigative Necessity, Reasonable and Probable Grounds, Prior Authorization Process, Non Disclosure by Investigators, Primary Vs Secondary Interception Targets, Excision of Evidence
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Constitutional Law Search and Seizure Procedural Law Authorization Under S.186 Criminal Code Investigative Necessity Reasonable and Probable Grounds +4 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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

See Chun Lee

Defendant

Chuk Fong Tao

Defendant

Wei Bo Chen

Defendant

Chak Nam Chan

Defendant

Siu Wah Chau

Defendant

Cheung Hung

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Voir Dire / Ruling on Validity of Wiretap Authorization (p9/2000)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Authorization P9/2000 was invalid due to nondisclosure by Constable Kwok
  2. 2 Whether investigative necessity under s.186(1)(b) was established
  3. 3 Whether there were reasonable and probable grounds (credible probability) to intercept communications of named targets, particularly Lee (secondary) and Chen (primary)

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Authorization P9/2000 was not invalidated by Constable Kwok's failure to disclose his belief because that failure did not fundamentally impair the court's ability to review the authorization nor materially mislead the authorizing judge; the precondition of investigative necessity under s.186(1)(b) could have been found given evidence of ongoing and impending heroin importation and trafficking; the credible probability standard was satisfied for See Chun Lee as a secondary target based on association and intercepted calls; however P9/2000 was invalid insofar as it named Chen (Ben, Chen Wei Bo) as a primary target because the evidence did not establish sufficient basis...

Court Disposition

Authorization P9/2000 upheld in all respects except that it is invalid insofar as it named Chen (Chen Wei Bo, "Ben") as a primary target; no excision ordered nor was the authorization otherwise vitiated for nondisclosure by Constable Kwok.

Orders

  • Authorization P9/2000 declared invalid insofar as it named Chen (Chen Wei Bo, "Ben") as a primary target.
  • Authorization P9/2000 is valid as against See Chun Lee (secondary target).