R. v. Bui (D.N.) et al., 2005 BCCA 482

• Judge: Donald, Low and Thackray, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: September 26, 2005
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: 2005 BCCA 482;(2005), 217 B.C.A.C. 194 (CA)

R. v. Bui (D.N.) (2005), 217 B.C.A.C. 194 (CA);

    358 W.A.C. 194

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] B.C.A.C. TBEd. OC.025

Regina (respondent) v. Duc Ngoc Bui (appellant) and Muoi Vu (appellant)

(CA031707; CA031708; 2005 BCCA 482)

Indexed As: R. v. Bui (D.N.) et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Donald, Low and Thackray, JJ.A.

October 12, 2005.

Summary:

Two accused appealed their convictions for laundering proceeds of crime.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals.

Civil Rights - Topic 1214

Security of the person - Lawful or reasonable search - Searches incidental to arrest or detention - Two police officers (Andrew and Ho) detained the accused (Bui and Vu) at an airport to investigate them for transportation of proceeds of crime - The officers moved them to a storefront office - The accused indicated that they wished to speak to a lawyer - Andrew took Bui into one office and read him his Charter rights - While Ho was reading Vu her s. 10(b) Charter rights in a separate office, she observed what she believed to be bundles of money on Vu's person - Ho arrested Vu and advised Andrew of her findings - Andrew saw indications of similar bundles on Bui and arrested him - The trial judge found that Andrew had breached Bui's s. 10(b) Charter rights by questioning him before advising him of his right to counsel - However, the discovery of the money occurred after the accused had been read their s. 10(b) rights - The officers observed the packages and confirmed the contents of the packages incidental to the lawful arrests - There was no requirement for the searches to be delayed while the accused consulted counsel - The searches were minimally intrusive and reasonable - The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal - See paragraphs 1 to 34.

Civil Rights - Topic 1217

Security of the person - Lawful or reasonable search - What constitutes unreasonable search and seizure - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1214 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3603

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - What constitutes arbitrary detention - Two police officers (Andrew and Ho) at the Vancouver International Airport observed Bui and Vu (the accused) getting off a plane from Toronto - The Vancouver-Toronto route was commonly used to smuggle cigarettes, money and marijuana - Both accused had been previously involved in contraband activity at the Airport - They exhibited suspicious and nervous behaviour - Contrary to Andrew's belief that Bui and Vu were related, they acted as if they were strangers - Andrew detained Bui on the belief that he was transporting contraband - Andrew took Bui to where Ho was questioning Vu - Andrew learned that the accused lacked luggage capacity to transport contraband and advised them that they were under investigation for transportation of proceeds of crime - The officer took the accused to the storefront office, placed them in separate offices and read them their Charter rights - During the process, Ho observed what she believed to be bundles of money on Vu's person - Ho arrested Vu and advised Andrew of her findings - Andrew saw indications of similar bundles on Bui and arrested him - A trial judge concluded that the accused had not been arbitrarily detained (Charter, s. 9) - The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - See paragraphs 1 to 34.

Civil Rights - Topic 4602

Right to counsel - General - Denial of - Evidence taken inadmissible - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1214 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4602

Right to counsel - General - Denial of - Evidence taken inadmissible - Two police officers detained the accused at an airport to investigate them for transportation of proceeds of crime - The officers moved them to a storefront office - The accused indicated that they wished to speak to a lawyer - The storefront offices were not setup for private calls - The accused were read their Charter rights and arrested - They were not given an opportunity to contact counsel until about an hour after the initial detention when they were returned to the police detachment - A trial judge held that the officers' failure to give the accused the option of contacting counsel at the storefront office without privacy infringed the accused's s. 10(b) rights, but held that exclusion of the evidence subsequently seized would bring the administration of justice into disrepute - The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal - See paragraphs 1 to 34.

Civil Rights - Topic 4604

Right to counsel - General - Denial of or interference with - What constitutes - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1214 and second Civil Rights -Topic 4602 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 4602 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Debot, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1140; 102 N.R. 161; 37 O.A.C. 1; 52 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Ferris (T.L.) (1998), 108 B.C.A.C. 244; 176 W.A.C. 244; 126 C.C.C.(3d) 298 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Simpson (R.) (1993), 60 O.A.C. 327; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 482 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Lal (S.N.) (1998), 113 B.C.A.C. 47; 184 W.A.C. 47 (C.A.),  leave to appeal  dismissed (1999), 239 N.R. 400; 181 B.C.A.C. 320; 298 W.A.C. 320, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Mann (P.H.), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 59; 324 N.R. 215; 187 Man.R.(2d) 1; 330 W.A.C. 1; 185 C.C.C.(3d) 308, refd to. [para. 28].

Counsel:

N.L. Cobb, for the appellants;

P. Eccles, for the respondent.

These appeals were heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on September 26, 2005, by Donald, Low and Thackray, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. Low, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the court on October 12, 2005.