R. v. Lee

R. v. Lee

The authorization P13/99 was held valid as against Gou Din Ho because Informant A provided sufficiently detailed, contemporaneous information, supported by past performance and corroborative investigative material (intercepted calls and contextual facts) such that a reasonable issuing judge could have found the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2002 BCSC 1910
Parties
Crown/prosecutor: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant/accused: See Chun Lee; Defendant/accused: Gou Din Ho; Defendant/accused: Chuk Fong Tao; Defendant/accused: Wei Bo Chen; Defendant/accused: Chak Nam Chan; Defendant/accused: Siu Wah Chau; Defendant/accused: Cheung Hung
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 January 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Wiretap/authorization Review / Voir Dire and Ruling on Validity of Wiretap Authorizations
Outcome
Application to quash P13/99 dismissed; authorization P13/99 held valid as against Gou Din Ho
Legal Topics
Wiretap Authorization, Informant Reliability, Reasonable and Probable Grounds, Judicial Review of Warrants, Garofoli Factors
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Search and Seizure Evidence Privacy Law Wiretap Authorization Informant Reliability Reasonable and Probable Grounds Judicial Review of Warrants +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown/prosecutor

See Chun Lee

Defendant/accused

Gou Din Ho

Defendant/accused

Chuk Fong Tao

Defendant/accused

Wei Bo Chen

Defendant/accused

Chak Nam Chan

Defendant/accused

Siu Wah Chau

Defendant/accused

Cheung Hung

Defendant/accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Wiretap/authorization Review / Voir Dire and Ruling on Validity of Wiretap Authorizations

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether authorization P13/99 (and P16/99 amendment) provided reasonable and probable grounds to intercept Gou Din Ho's private communications
  2. 2 Whether the informant evidence met the Garofoli reliability factors and provided sufficient indicia to support a prior authorization
  3. 3 Whether the reviewing judge must apply an objective test or decide de novo and what standard governs review

Ratio Decidendi

The authorization P13/99 was held valid as against Gou Din Ho because Informant A provided sufficiently detailed, contemporaneous information, supported by past performance and corroborative investigative material (intercepted calls and contextual facts) such that a reasonable issuing judge could have found the Garofoli factors satisfied and concluded there were reasonable and probable grounds to authorize interception.

Court Disposition

Application to quash P13/99 dismissed; authorization P13/99 held valid as against Gou Din Ho

Orders

  • Application to quash P13/99 dismissed in respect of Gou Din Ho
  • Corrigendum to oral ruling issued correcting wording in paragraph 25