From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| R. v. Wong |
Supreme Court of Canada
|
Argued May 2, 1990
Decided November 22, 1990 |
| Full case name: |
Santiago Wong v. Her Majesty The Queen |
| Citations: |
[1990] 3 S.C.R. 36, 1990 CanLII 56 (S.C.C.); (1990), 60 C.C.C. (3d) 460; (1990), 1 C.R. (4th) 1; (1990), 2 C.R.R. (2d) 277; (1990), 45 O.A.C. 250 |
| Prior history: |
The trial judge acquitted the appellant and ruled video surveillance as inadmissible. The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal against acquittal and ordered a new trial. |
|
| Holding |
| The appeal should be dismissed because admission into evidence of the videotape would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute. |
|
| Court membership |
|
|
| Case opinions |
| Majority by: La Forest |
| Joined by: Dickson, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka |
| Concurring opinion by: Lamer |
| Joined by: McLachlin |
| Dissent by: Wilson |
| Joined by: None |
|
R. v. Wong, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 36, is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the evidence obtained by electronic video surveillance conducted without authorization. The Court held that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a hotel room. This expectation does not depend on whether those persons were engaging in illegal activities. Therefore, individuals can expect that agents of the state will not engage in warrantless video surveillance. Electronic surveillance without authorization violates Section Eight of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, for this particular case, the Supreme Court held that the police acted in good faith and had reasonable and probable ground to believe criminal activities were committed. The surveillance without authorization was a result of misunderstanding. Hence, acceptance of the surveillance as evidences will not bring the administration of justice into disrepute under Section Twenty-four of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
[edit] See also
[edit] External links
