R. v. Wasfi

R. v. Wasfi

The accused has standing to challenge authorizations four, six and seven; in relation to those challenges he is permitted to scrutinize authorizations one, two, three and five and to argue that evidence and the manner of earlier interceptions are relevant to the legality of the authorizations for which he has standing; this permission does not constitute a finding of standing as to the earlier authorizations or an automatic finding of relevance for them and authorizations eight through eleven are not in issue.

Citation
2003 BCSC 1127
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: George Wasfi
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 August 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Voir Dire on Admissibility of Intercepted Communications (standing Challenge)
Outcome
Accused permitted to scrutinize authorizations 1,2,3 and 5 for relevance in support of challenges to authorizations 4,6 and 7; standing found only for authorizations 4,6 and 7; authorizations 8–11 not in issue.
Legal Topics
Wiretap Authorizations, Standing to Challenge Searches, Charter S.8 and S.24(2), Investigative Necessity, Relevance of Prior Authorizations
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Wiretap Authorizations Standing to Challenge Searches Charter S.8 and S.24(2) Investigative Necessity Relevance of Prior Authorizations

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

George Wasfi

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Voir Dire on Admissibility of Intercepted Communications (standing Challenge)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether accused has standing to challenge wiretap authorizations that did not directly invade his privacy
  2. 2 Whether prior authorizations are relevant to the validity of later authorizations that did invade the accused's privacy
  3. 3 Whether the defence must be permitted to scrutinize earlier authorizations to challenge investigative necessity of later ones

Ratio Decidendi

The accused has standing to challenge authorizations four, six and seven; in relation to those challenges he is permitted to scrutinize authorizations one, two, three and five and to argue that evidence and the manner of earlier interceptions are relevant to the legality of the authorizations for which he has standing; this permission does not constitute a finding of standing as to the earlier authorizations or an automatic finding of relevance for them and authorizations eight through eleven are not in issue.

Court Disposition

Accused permitted to scrutinize authorizations 1,2,3 and 5 for relevance in support of challenges to authorizations 4,6 and 7; standing found only for authorizations 4,6 and 7; authorizations 8–11 not in issue.

Orders

  • Defence is permitted to examine and challenge evidence and circumstances surrounding authorizations 1,2,3 and 5 insofar as those matters are relied on in challenges to authorizations 4,6 and 7
  • This ruling does not confer standing on the accused for authorizations other than 4,6 and 7 and does not preclude the Crown from opposing relevance or admissibility on the merits