R. v. Hernandez

R. v. Hernandez

The court limited and defined the scope of the voir dire: it will address the constitutionality of s.184.4 (initially limited to whether the court is bound by R. v. Six Accused Persons), the applicability of s.184.4(c), the sufficiency of authorizations P-18 and P-19 to identify accused, and the application of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2008 BCSC 1478
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Jose Hernandez; Accused: Anh The Nguyen; Accused: Joshua Ponicappo; Accused: Sam Tuan Vu; Accused: Van Van Vu
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Voir Dire (oral Ruling on Vukelich Application)
Outcome
Voir dire ordered to proceed with limitations and scope set out by the court; publication bans ordered.
Legal Topics
Wiretap/interception, Section 184.4 Constitutionality, Section 184.4(c) Applicability, Authorization Sufficiency (p 18, P 19), Voice Identification and Standing, Section 24(2) Canada Evidence Act, Exigent Circumstances, Publication Ban Under S.486.5(1)
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Evidence Constitutional Law Interception of Communications Publication Ban Wiretap/interception Section 184.4 Constitutionality Section 184.4(c) Applicability +5 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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Jose Hernandez

Accused

Anh The Nguyen

Accused

Joshua Ponicappo

Accused

Sam Tuan Vu

Accused

Van Van Vu

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial Voir Dire (oral Ruling on Vukelich Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.184.4 of the Criminal Code is constitutional
  2. 2 Scope and applicability of s.184.4(c)
  3. 3 Whether authorizations P-18 and P-19 sufficiently identify the accused for admissibility purposes

Ratio Decidendi

The court limited and defined the scope of the voir dire: it will address the constitutionality of s.184.4 (initially limited to whether the court is bound by R. v. Six Accused Persons), the applicability of s.184.4(c), the sufficiency of authorizations P-18 and P-19 to identify accused, and the application of s.24(2) of the Canada Evidence Act; voice identification evidence need not be admitted by the defence for standing if the defence undertakes not to contest voice identification on admissibility at the voir dire; evidence of exigent circumstances is unnecessary except insofar as it explains why names were omitted from subsequent authorizations.

Court Disposition

Voir dire ordered to proceed with limitations and scope set out by the court; publication bans ordered.

Orders

  • Ban on publication under s.486.5(1) C.C.C. prohibiting publication or broadcast of any information that could identify witnesses referred to as 'Witness X' and 'Witness Y'; they are to be referred to as Witness X and Witness Y in any publication.
  • Statutory and inherent jurisdictional ban on publication identifying the person referred to as 'Mr. Z'; he may be referred to as Mr. Z in any publication.