KIDS FOUND IN GROW-OP RETURNED TO PARENTS

Three Accused All Attempt to Distance Themselves From House Where
Plants Found

The trial of a man and woman accused of subjecting their young
children to the dangers of a marijuana grow operation that was
targeted by thieves wrapped up Wednesday.

Wen Yan Wu and Wan Hong Lee, the children's parents, were charged in
Jan. 6 2006, after police responded to reports of a home invasion and
found more than 900 plants in a house on Bridgeport Road.

A woman said to be the children's aunt -- Wen Ying Wu -- was also
charged.

Richmond RCMP had received a call from a woman reporting a break-in
which turned out to be a marijuana "grow-rip."

When they arrived, they found Wen Ying Wu (the aunt) in the front yard
in her pajamas. They found Wen Yan Wu and her two-year-old a couple of
blocks away, in the rain. The two-year-old was said to be wearing
"flip-flops and pjs."

Police soon realized the family had been the victims of a marijuana
grow-rip.

The three adults were charged with possession of a controlled
substance, possession of marijuana for the purposes of trafficking and
theft of power.

The children, aged two and three, were taken into custody by Child
Protection.

According to Crown counsel, the children are back in the custody of
their parents, at least for now.

The home used for the grow operation was owned by the mother, Wen Yan
Wu.

Her lawyer argued that being at the home the night of the home
invasion did not necessarily prove she lived there, and therefore did
not establish the grow operation was hers. He referred to documents
that established that, at some point, she had lived in Steveston.

Her sister's lawyer made a similar argument -- that being at the house
the night of the break-in did not necessarily mean she lived there,
and could not therefore be held criminally responsible for the marijuana.

As for the children's father, Wan Hong Lee, his lawyer argued that
living in the house did not necessarily mean he had any control over
what went on in the house, since the house belonged to his wife. "Now
I'm getting arguments from three lawyers that nobody was responsible,"
said Judge Ron Fratkin.

The judge pointed to a fingerprint found on a light bulb used in the
grow operation that seemed to link Lee to the marijuana grow operation.

"It connects him to the grow-op, does it not?" Fratkin
asked.

"No, it connects him to the bulb," his lawyer, J. Sherrin, answered,
adding there is no way of telling when his client's fingerprint came
to be on the bulb.

Despite attempts by defence lawyers to distance all three suspects
from each other, Crown counsel David Clements said there was "ample
evidence of a familial relationship" with respect to the grow operation.

"I think there is abundant evidence that all three resided at the
residence," he said.

Fratkin pointed out that the grow operation in the upstairs of the
house was not restricted, therefore everyone who lived in the house
would have had access to it, and might therefore be considered complicit.

He reserved passing judgment until Oct. 16.