R. v. Ciancio and Lees

R. v. Ciancio and Lees

Authorizations P61 and P65 were valid: Lees was not a 'known' person requiring naming because interception of his communications in 2001 was unlikely to assist the historical murder investigation; investigative necessity under s.186(1) was established given the complexity, number of targets and plan to stimulate communications via undercover operations; affidavits and operational plan provided a credibly-based probability that interceptions would afford evidence; omissions in disclosure were not material or deliberate enough to subvert the authorization process; evidence obtained pursuant to P61 and P65 is admissible (s.24(2) not considered).

Citation
2006 BCSC 1717
Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Accused: Salvatore Ciancio; Accused: Allan Christopher Lees
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal (conspiracy and Related Proceedings; Wiretap Admissibility) / Voir Dire No.1 — Admissibility Challenge to Wiretap Evidence (oral Ruling No.3)
Outcome
Applications to exclude evidence dismissed; authorizations P61 and P65 upheld; evidence obtained under those authorizations admissible
Legal Topics
Wiretap Authorization (part VI Criminal Code), Investigative Necessity (s.186), Known But Not Named (s.186(4)(c) / Chesson), Duarte Reasonable and Probable Grounds Test, Non Disclosure/omissions in Warrant Affidavits, Use of Wiretap to Facilitate Undercover Operations
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Charter (search and Seizure) Evidence Law Surveillance/wiretapping Law Wiretap Authorization (part VI Criminal Code) Investigative Necessity (s.186) Known But Not Named (s.186(4)(c) / Chesson) Duarte Reasonable and Probable Grounds Test +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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Salvatore Ciancio

Accused

Allan Christopher Lees

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal (conspiracy and Related Proceedings; Wiretap Admissibility) / Voir Dire No.1 — Admissibility Challenge to Wiretap Evidence (oral Ruling No.3)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Allan Christopher Lees was a 'known' person who had to be named in wiretap authorizations
  2. 2 Whether authorizations P61 and P65 met investigative necessity under s.186(1)
  3. 3 Whether there were reasonable and probable grounds that interception would afford evidence (Duarte test)

Ratio Decidendi

Authorizations P61 and P65 were valid: Lees was not a 'known' person requiring naming because interception of his communications in 2001 was unlikely to assist the historical murder investigation; investigative necessity under s.186(1) was established given the complexity, number of targets and plan to stimulate communications via undercover operations; affidavits and operational plan provided a credibly-based probability that interceptions would afford evidence; omissions in disclosure were not material or deliberate enough to subvert the authorization process; evidence obtained pursuant to P61 and P65 is admissible (s.24(2) not considered).

Court Disposition

Applications to exclude evidence dismissed; authorizations P61 and P65 upheld; evidence obtained under those authorizations admissible

Orders

  • Authorizations P61 and P65 declared valid and not quashed
  • Evidence obtained pursuant to P61 and P65 admitted for trial