STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Respondent does not accept the outline of the facts set out in the Applicant's Memorandum of Argument as being sufficiently balanced, complete and accurate so as to provide the Court with an understanding of the issues, and for greater clarity restates them as follows.
1. The Applicant is charged on a Direct Indictment together with Gou Din Ho (Ho), Chuk Fong Tao (Tao), Wei Bo Chen (Chen), Chak Nam Chan (Chan), Siu Wah Chau (Chau) and Cheung Hung (Hung), with conspiracy to import heroin, importing heroin and possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (the "Act"). He is also charged with unlawfully possessing proceeds of crime, contrary to the Act.
2. On March 22, 2001, a bail hearing was held before the Honourable Mr. Justice Chamberlist of the Supreme Court of British Columbia (the "Chambers Judge"). He found the Applicant had not discharged his onus under the tertiary ground, and therefore ordered the Applicant's detention pursuant to s. 515(10)(c) of the Criminal Code.
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, Chap. C-46R. v. Lee (22 March 2001), Vancouver Registry CC001527 (B.C.S.C.) (Reasons for Judgment)
STATEMENT OF FACTS
THE CROWN'S EVIDENCE
- See Chun Lee was arrested on September 2, 2000, following the seizure by the police of 93 kilograms of heroin, worth $17 million, from a warehouse at 103-5025 Still Creek in Burnaby. The heroin arrived in Vancouver, on August 18, 2000, concealed in a container that had been shipped from China.
- At three separate hearings, Mr. Lee has failed to show cause why he should be released on bail.
- Mr. Lee now claims, for the fourth time, that he should be granted bail because Crown's case against him is weak.
- Crown, however, has developed substantial evidence, little of which is acknowledged in the applicant's factum
- Crown's evidence has been concisely summarized by the Chambers Judge in his ruling. In particular, he noted:
- intercepted telephone conversations between Ho, the Applicant and Tao, his co-defendant, during which they discuss the availability of the heroin and the altered container to transport the heroin; (para. 12, 13, 15);
- The circumstances surrounding the delivery to, and exchange of money by, the Applicant in Hong Kong; (para. 14, 16) . . . [list continues]