Fergus O’Donnell

The appellant appealed convictions for conspiring to traffic in a narcotic and possession of a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking arising from a heroin shipment from Thailand to Canada.

He argued the verdicts were unreasonable and that intercepted private communications in Chinese were admitted contrary to s. 189(5)(a) of the Criminal Code because he was not served with a written transcript in the original language.

The court held the trial judge was entitled to reject the appellant's exculpatory explanation and that the findings of guilt were fully supported by the evidence.

It further held that s. 189(5)(a) is an evidentiary provision to be interpreted liberally, and that where the Crown proved the communications viva voce through a translator, service of the transcribed English translations constituted a statement setting out full particulars of the private communications.

The conviction appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a conviction for importing marijuana arising from a controlled delivery and a subsequent search of her apartment.

The court held that police breached s. 10(b) by questioning the appellant while detained without advising her of the right to counsel, and that later admissions obtained after formal compliance remained temporally, contextually and causally connected to the original breach.

Once those admissions were excised, the information to obtain did not justify the search warrant, rendering the apartment search contrary to s. 8.

The admissions and the seized material were characterized as conscriptive evidence and excluded under s. 24(2).

Without that evidence, the conviction could not stand and an acquittal was entered.