News (Media Awareness Project) - Canada: Convicted BC Hells Angels Lose High Court Challenges |
Title: | Canada: Convicted BC Hells Angels Lose High Court Challenges |
Published On: | 2005-11-18 |
Source: | Vancouver Sun (CN BC) |
Fetched On: | 2008-08-19 05:15:24 |
CONVICTED B.C. HELLS ANGELS LOSE HIGH COURT CHALLENGES
OTTAWA -- The country's top court has upheld the convictions of two
Hells Angels members whose trial was considered a key victory for
Crown prosecutors in a campaign to combat drug dealing in Vancouver.
In a 7-0 decision Thursday, the Supreme Court of Canada rejected
constitutional arguments mounted by Ronald Lising and Francisco
Batista Pires, who were convicted of trafficking, conspiracy to
traffic and possession of proceeds of crime. They had challenged their
2001 convictions on grounds that their lawyers were unable to
cross-examine a police detective who swore an affidavit to obtain a
wiretap warrant against the men.
Defence lawyers contended there is an automatic constitutional right
to question the information used to obtain such warrants.
The court, rejected that argument and upheld established precedent
that grants discretion to the trial judge to balance contending interests.
OTTAWA -- The country's top court has upheld the convictions of two
Hells Angels members whose trial was considered a key victory for
Crown prosecutors in a campaign to combat drug dealing in Vancouver.
In a 7-0 decision Thursday, the Supreme Court of Canada rejected
constitutional arguments mounted by Ronald Lising and Francisco
Batista Pires, who were convicted of trafficking, conspiracy to
traffic and possession of proceeds of crime. They had challenged their
2001 convictions on grounds that their lawyers were unable to
cross-examine a police detective who swore an affidavit to obtain a
wiretap warrant against the men.
Defence lawyers contended there is an automatic constitutional right
to question the information used to obtain such warrants.
The court, rejected that argument and upheld established precedent
that grants discretion to the trial judge to balance contending interests.
Member Comments |
No member comments available...