R. v. Russell

R. v. Russell

The ITO for P3, including paragraph 41 and Exhibit A, constitutionally and legally disclosed that 10,681 prior intercepts remained unreviewed and therefore did not amount to material non-disclosure; the applicant failed to prove that the unreviewed intercepts would have negated investigative necessity, so the fresh authorization P3/2008 is facially valid and the application is dismissed.

Citation
2012 BCSC 1488
Parties
Crown: Regina; Applicant/accused: Daniel Ronald Russell; Accused: Yong Sung John Lee; Accused: Dilun Heng; Accused: Barzan Tilli-Choli; Accused: Karwan Ahmet Saed; Accused: Ion Kroitoru also known as John William Croitoru
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Wiretap Authorization Challenge / Voir Dire Facial Validity Challenge to Authorization P3/2008
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Wiretap Authorization, Investigative Necessity, Full and Frank Disclosure, Material Non Disclosure, Renewal Vs Fresh Authorization, Facial Validity
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Search and Seizure Procedural Law Wiretap Authorization Investigative Necessity Full and Frank Disclosure Material Non Disclosure +2 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Daniel Ronald Russell

Applicant/accused

Yong Sung John Lee

Accused

Dilun Heng

Accused

Barzan Tilli-Choli

Accused

Karwan Ahmet Saed

Accused

Ion Kroitoru also known as John William Croitoru

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Wiretap Authorization Challenge / Voir Dire Facial Validity Challenge to Authorization P3/2008

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the ITO in support of fresh authorization P3/2008 failed to provide full, fair and frank disclosure of interceptions under prior authorization P66/2007
  2. 2 Whether failure to review 10,681 prior intercepts undermined the investigative necessity requirement for P3
  3. 3 Who bears the onus to demonstrate that unreviewed intercepts negate investigative necessity

Ratio Decidendi

The ITO for P3, including paragraph 41 and Exhibit A, constitutionally and legally disclosed that 10,681 prior intercepts remained unreviewed and therefore did not amount to material non-disclosure; the applicant failed to prove that the unreviewed intercepts would have negated investigative necessity, so the fresh authorization P3/2008 is facially valid and the application is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed