R. v. Lawrence, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 619
James Lawrence Appellant
v.
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent
Indexed as: R. v. Lawrence
1988: April 21.
Present: McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain and La Forest JJ.
On appeal from the Court of Appeal for Newfoundland
Criminal law -- Interception of communications -- Authorization to intercept private communications -- Admissibility of evidence -- Description of manner of interception -- Appeal as of right.
Cases Cited
Followed: Wiretap Reference, 1984 31 (SCC), [1984] 2 S.C.R. 697; Lyons v. The Queen, 1984 30 (SCC), [1984] 2 S.C.R. 633.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Newfoundland Court of Appeal (1987), 60 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 126, dismissing the appellant's appeal from a conviction on a charge of conspiracy to possess a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking. Appeal dismissed.
David Hurley, for the appellant.
Michael Dambrot, for the respondent.
The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by
1McIntyre J.--We are all of the view that a proper construction of the law relating to the description of the manner of interception, in an authorization under the Criminal Code, is to be found in the words of Estey J. in the Wiretap Reference, 1984 31 (SCC), [1984] 2 S.C.R. 697, at p. 728, where he stated:
The manner of interception may be expressed in very specific terms in one order, whereas the court in another order may authorize the use of several or all of the devices enumerated in Part IV.1, leaving open to the investigative agency the choice between these devices, and the choice between wiretapping with or without interference with equipment inside the premises, or radio surveillance by electromagnetic devices, or a combination of these and other devices.
and in Lyons v. The Queen, 1984 30 (SCC), [1984] 2 S.C.R. 633, at p. 671, where he said:
The judge may in response to such application issue an order in broad terms, as was done here, or may particularize a type of device or devices and their mode of employment. Either type of order is foreseen by the wording of ss. 178.12(1)(e) and 178.13(2)(c); that is, "generally describe the manner of interception that may be used".
This is determinative of the issue in this case. The question as to limitation of place of interception was not properly before us and is not dealt with.
2The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitors for the appellant: Puddester & Orsborn, St. John's.
Solicitor for the respondent: The Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa.
