R. v. Russell

R. v. Russell

A voir dire was ordered and limited cross-examination of the affiant was permitted to determine whether the ITO omitted material facts about international cooperation and investigative means that could have affected the finding of investigative necessity; however no voir dire was granted on whether reasonable and probable grounds existed to name Roueche as a target because the ITO contained sufficient corroboration to support his inclusion.

Citation
2012 BCSC 1085
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Daniel Ronald Russell; Accused: Yong Sung John Lee; Accused: Dilun Heng; Accused: Barzan Tilli-Choli; Accused: Karwan Ahmet Saed; Accused: Ion Kroitoru (aka John William Croitoru)
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Voir Dire/applications
Outcome
Voir dire ordered on investigative necessity and disclosure; limited cross-examination of the affiant permitted; no voir dire on reasonable and probable grounds to name Roueche.
Legal Topics
Wiretap Authorization, Investigative Necessity, Informant Reliability, Full Fair and Frank Disclosure, Cross Examination of Affiant, Reasonable and Probable Grounds
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Constitutional Law Wiretap Authorization Investigative Necessity Informant Reliability Full Fair and Frank Disclosure Cross Examination of Affiant +1 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 31 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Daniel Ronald Russell

Accused

Yong Sung John Lee

Accused

Dilun Heng

Accused

Barzan Tilli-Choli

Accused

Karwan Ahmet Saed

Accused

Ion Kroitoru (aka John William Croitoru)

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial Voir Dire/applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the ITO satisfied investigative necessity under s.186(1)(b) Criminal Code
  2. 2 Whether the affiant failed to provide full, fair and frank disclosure of material facts including U.S. involvement
  3. 3 Whether reasonable and probable grounds existed to name Roueche as a target

Ratio Decidendi

A voir dire was ordered and limited cross-examination of the affiant was permitted to determine whether the ITO omitted material facts about international cooperation and investigative means that could have affected the finding of investigative necessity; however no voir dire was granted on whether reasonable and probable grounds existed to name Roueche as a target because the ITO contained sufficient corroboration to support his inclusion.

Court Disposition

Voir dire ordered on investigative necessity and disclosure; limited cross-examination of the affiant permitted; no voir dire on reasonable and probable grounds to name Roueche.

Orders

  • Voir dire to determine investigative necessity and whether material facts were omitted from the ITO was ordered
  • Leave granted to cross-examine the affiant on limited matters relevant to investigative necessity and disclosure as defined in the June 22, 2012 ruling (2012 BCSC 931)