R. v. Lee
Because authorization P51/2000 stands in the same position as P47/2000 and the arguments advanced were materially the same as those previously considered and rejected, the court declines to declare P51/2000 invalid and applies the prior reasons given for P47/2000 to P51/2000.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2002 BCSC 1933
- 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
- 5 December 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Interlocutory Ruling on Validity of Judicial Authorization P51/2000
- Outcome
- Authorization P51/2000 not declared invalid
- Legal Topics
- Search Authorization Validity, Judicial Authorization, Interlocutory Review
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
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 / Interlocutory Ruling on Validity of Judicial Authorization P51/2000
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether authorization P51/2000 is invalid
- 2 Whether the legal arguments that were addressed in relation to authorization P47/2000 also render P51/2000 invalid
Ratio Decidendi
Because authorization P51/2000 stands in the same position as P47/2000 and the arguments advanced were materially the same as those previously considered and rejected, the court declines to declare P51/2000 invalid and applies the prior reasons given for P47/2000 to P51/2000.
Court Disposition
Authorization P51/2000 not declared invalid
Orders
- Decline to declare authorization P51/2000 invalid
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
2002 BCSC 1933 R. v. Lee Citation: R. v. Lee Date: 20021205 2002 BCSC 1933 Docket: CC010051 Registry: Vancouver IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Ruling on validity of authorization P51/2000 The Honourable Mr. Justice Cullen December 5, 2002 HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN AGAINST SEE CHUN LEE, CHUK FONG TAO, WEI BO CHEN CHAK NAM CHAN, SIU WAH CHAU AND CHEUNG HUNG Counsel for Crown M.M.M. Devlin J.K. Torrance Counsel for Defendant Lee P. Leask, Q.C. D. Jevning Counsel for Defendant Tao D.B.L. Sokol Counsel for Defendant Chen D. Gaffar No other appearances Place and Date of Trial: Vancouver, B.C. December 5, 2002 BAN ON PUBLICATION 648 CCC [1] THE COURT: With respect, then, to the affidavit number P51/2000, as I indicated, I have reviewed it and, based on the submissions of Mr. Sokol, it stands in a similar position as the previous authorization, that is, P47/2000, and it either stands or falls on the basis of the same argument that was made with respect to P47, and, having reviewed P47 and given reasons in more extensive form, I simply apply those reasons to the authorization numbered P51 and arrive at the same result, which is to decline to declare the authorization invalid. [2] I do not think I need say anything more about that, except that although the argument was, I thought, ingeniously conceived and presented, it would not lead to success by repetition. The Honourable Mr. Justice Cullen