R. v. Tse

R. v. Tse

The court held that all accused have standing as of right to challenge the constitutional validity of s.184.4 (Big M principle). Ly has s.8 standing because he was intercepted; Tse has standing to challenge implementation under ss.7 and 11(d) and limited s.8 standing if interceptions he is alleged to have participated in were captured under earlier authorizations or overlap exists; Soux, Doan, Nguyen and Vandrick have limited standing under ss.7 and 11(d) to challenge implementation but do not have s.8 standing absent direct interception or established overlap of authorizations. Tse and Ly may scrutinize prior authorizations to the extent P-17 relies on them.

Citation
2007 BCSC 1974
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Yat Fung Albert Tse; Accused: Viet Bac Nguyen; Accused: Nhan Trong Ly; Accused: Daniel Luis Soux; Accused: Huong Dac Doan; Accused: Myles Alexander Vandrick
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Oral Ruling on Standing Applications Pre Trial
Legal Topics
Standing, Telephone Interception/wiretapping, S.184.4 Criminal Code, S.186 Judicial Authorizations, S.7 S.8 S.11(d) S.24(2) Charter Issues, Co Conspirator Hearsay Exception, Publication Ban S.648
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Evidence Charter Rights Search and Seizure Standing Telephone Interception/wiretapping S.184.4 Criminal Code +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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Yat Fung Albert Tse

Accused

Viet Bac Nguyen

Accused

Nhan Trong Ly

Accused

Daniel Luis Soux

Accused

Huong Dac Doan

Accused

Myles Alexander Vandrick

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Oral Ruling on Standing Applications Pre Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether accused other than Ly have standing to challenge constitutionality of s.184.4 Criminal Code
  2. 2 Scope of standing under s.8 (reasonable expectation of privacy) versus standing under ss.7 and 11(d) and common law
  3. 3 Whether Tse has standing to challenge implementation of s.184.4 and earlier authorizations P-12 in addition to P-17

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that all accused have standing as of right to challenge the constitutional validity of s.184.4 (Big M principle). Ly has s.8 standing because he was intercepted; Tse has standing to challenge implementation under ss.7 and 11(d) and limited s.8 standing if interceptions he is alleged to have participated in were captured under earlier authorizations or overlap exists; Soux, Doan, Nguyen and Vandrick have limited standing under ss.7 and 11(d) to challenge implementation but do not have s.8 standing absent direct interception or established overlap of authorizations. Tse and Ly may scrutinize prior authorizations to the extent P-17 relies on them.