Thursday, December 24, 2009
From BC Mary: best wishes
.
for a
VERY MERRY CHRISTMAS
as you hope and plan for the New Year.
.
for a
VERY MERRY CHRISTMAS
as you hope and plan for the New Year.
.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
BCRail engine and a long, long train
How many boxcars and oil tankers make up this incredible train ... click HERE to see it on the Ontario-Quebec border.
YouTube - BC Rail (CN) 4641, Illinois Central 1001, CN 2616 - 4th ...
On a bitterly cold winter day (-22C windchill) and filmed with bare hands with no tripod as the photographer rushed out of his car to capture this train on video ... British Columbia Railway 4641, a Dash 9-44CWL built in 1995, Illinois Central 1001, an SD70 built in 1995, and CN 2616, a Dash 9-44CW built in 2000, lead a long Canadian National freight train west from the Province of Quebec into the Province of Ontario.
This train had made a stop at Coteau Quebec but was seen building up speed in anticipation of its trip down the old Kingston Subdivision to Toronto.
British Columbia Railway 4641, was the first Dash 9-44CWL in its class for that railway. Illinois Central 1001 was the second SD70 built in its class for that railway. CN 2616...well...she was 14th built Dash 9-44CW for CN in the year 2000.
Did you see the two Pan Am Railways boxcars in the train consist? Pan Am lives.....but not as the airline I [the photographer] remember it as. Now it's a railroad based in North Billerica MA.
Mile 47.02 CN Kingston Subdivision
By ConrailSD70MAC
February 28 2000, 2005
Click on YouTube.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Noted in passing: Click HERE for evidence that CN destroys boxcars but no evidence anywhere (so far as I know) as to whether CN added the promised 600 new boxcars to the former BCR fleet ... as part of the unpopular deal to "sell" BC Rail to CN. That CN promise to buy 600 new boxcars was one of the deal-breakers which should have come up for review on the 5th anniversary of the deal. Maybe the review is before the courts as the "Basi Virk Basi" trial.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
BC Mary says: I hope somebody counts these rail-cars. There must be 150 or 200 of them? In British Columbia, flat-lands like this are rare. I couldn't help thinking of BC Rail's knowledge (when we still owned BC Rail) of how best to navigate challenging territory such as mountain-sides, valleys, and rivers' edges.
In fact ... here's a little trip down memory lane ...
Riding BC Rail: Bygone Days of the "Cariboo Prospector"
On October 31, 2002, Canada’s rugged British Columbia province lost its last regularly scheduled Vancouver–Prince George passenger train, and tourists lost one of the most scenic rides in North America. To me, there is nothing that soothes the soul so much as a long train ride through lonesome country. To experience such a ride, and to share that experience with your fellow travelers, is to encounter the meaning of a journey. We’ve already lost too many of these trains; at least for me, this was one I’ve preserved in brain cells and digital bits. - YouTube 2000, 2005. Daniel B. Zukowski.
[Just to be sure you got it, it's HERE.]
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Trio accused in Basi-Virk case wants charges stayed
.
BY KEITH FRASER
The Province - Dec. 20, 2009
Three former government aides accused in the Basi-Virk corruption case are applying to have their criminal charges stayed on the grounds of an unreasonable delay in getting to trial.
The application before B.C. Supreme Court Justice Anne MacKenzie is expected to be heard when court resumes Jan. 11.
But given the fact that the new trial judge has apparently not made a single ruling in favor of the defence since she took over the case in the summer, it'll be an uphill battle for the accused. {Snip} ...
The judge also rejected a request by the defence that the court review 427 so-called source witness debriefings that have not been disclosed and were at the centre of a battle that landed in the Supreme Court of Canada and delayed the protracted case by two years.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
BY KEITH FRASER
The Province - Dec. 20, 2009
Three former government aides accused in the Basi-Virk corruption case are applying to have their criminal charges stayed on the grounds of an unreasonable delay in getting to trial.
The application before B.C. Supreme Court Justice Anne MacKenzie is expected to be heard when court resumes Jan. 11.
But given the fact that the new trial judge has apparently not made a single ruling in favor of the defence since she took over the case in the summer, it'll be an uphill battle for the accused. {Snip} ...
The judge also rejected a request by the defence that the court review 427 so-called source witness debriefings that have not been disclosed and were at the centre of a battle that landed in the Supreme Court of Canada and delayed the protracted case by two years.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Crown wins ruling on Basi Virk files
.
Mark Hume
The Globe and Mail - Dec. 19, 2009
Vancouver - Notes RCMP investigators made while debriefing secret informants in a political corruption case can be withheld by the Crown, the Supreme Court of British Columbia has ruled.
In a brief statement Madam Justice Anne MacKenzie dismissed applications by the lawyers defending Dave Basi, Bob Virk and Aneal Basi on charges of fraud, breach of trust and money laundering. The three former government employees allegedly traded in confidential information concerning the $1-billion sale of B.C. Rail in 2003.
The defence had sought more complete disclosure of 21 police reports that have already been released in a heavily redacted form, and to have the court review 427 source debriefing reports that the Crown has been withholding because the material could identify informants, or is irrelevant.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Mark Hume
The Globe and Mail - Dec. 19, 2009
Vancouver - Notes RCMP investigators made while debriefing secret informants in a political corruption case can be withheld by the Crown, the Supreme Court of British Columbia has ruled.
In a brief statement Madam Justice Anne MacKenzie dismissed applications by the lawyers defending Dave Basi, Bob Virk and Aneal Basi on charges of fraud, breach of trust and money laundering. The three former government employees allegedly traded in confidential information concerning the $1-billion sale of B.C. Rail in 2003.
The defence had sought more complete disclosure of 21 police reports that have already been released in a heavily redacted form, and to have the court review 427 source debriefing reports that the Crown has been withholding because the material could identify informants, or is irrelevant.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Basi Virk: Seven Minutes in Courtroom 54, December 18, 2009
.
By Robin Mathews
The court was thinly populated. No Michael Bolton, no William Berardino, no Kevin McCullough, no Joseph Doyle. Five lawyers in court. Two "mainstream media journalists". Two other observers in the gallery.
The reason was clear. Madam Justice Anne MacKenzie was arriving to deliver her decision on the Defence application for disclosure of miscellaneous redacted documents and 427 source witness reports (involving, I believe, briefing notes by officers involved with the informers who have claimed "informer privilege" over much of the material).
We sat the other day some hours as Ms. Winteringham (for the Special Crown Prosecutorial team) went through "redacted" documents in which only she and Madam Justice Anne MacKenzie could see what was being discussed - the "redacted" parts.
The word "redacted" is one of those words that is badly chosen and badly used. It is, in fact, a cover-up word. It's correct meaning is "edited, prepared for publication". The courts have mangled the word to make it mean "material that has been blanked out in a text so it can't be read". It would be much closer to the court's meaning if the word chosen was "censored", then the public would know the material is not edited, not revised, not re-written, not re-organized, but censored, blacked out.
When Associate Chief Justice Patrick Dohm "redacted" and "released" the search warrants from the famous legislature and other location "raids" of December 28, 2003 - all he did was to blacken about 80% of the text to protect people that I believe (under standard search warrant protocols) were not entitled to be so "protected". The public's right-to-know and right to "participate" in the administration of justice in British Columbia is under unceasing attack. Mr. Dohm's "redaction", I believe, constituted just such an attack by withholding material the public has a right to examine.
With Dohm's censored search warrants we saw a piece of the iceberg below the water line - the tip of that iceberg being the RCMP announcement on the day of the search warrant raids (before any of the gathered material could be examined) that no elected official was being (or would be) investigated. The announcement, we know, was just short of a lie because up until December 12, then Finance Minister Gary Collins was under investigation and surveillance (the Defence counsel insist).
"Redaction" in the Basi, Virk, and Basi matter has very often been, I believe, a sign of the class war that is being fought over the wrongdoing involved in the corrupt transfer of BC Rail to CNR: "the BC Rail Scandal".
To put the matter crudely (the most precise way to put it in this case), three cabinet aides appointed, in fact, by Gordon Campbell are charged with (variously) 14 counts of fraud, breach of trust, and money laundering as part of a mammoth set of highly dubious, complex, and wide-ranging manipulations, transactions, negotiations, misrepresentations, and - finally - falsifications that constitute "the BC Rail Scandal". That mammoth scenario could not have been master-minded and carried forward by the three men charged - but they are the only ones against whom accusations of criminal wrongdoing have been brought in relation to the scenario. Their counsel insist they are not guilty as charged.
Today's appearance of Madam Justice Anne MacKenzie and her decision on the application for disclosure by the Defence counsel was I believe another (extremely important) clash in that class war.
Put briefly: one force wishes to convey to the British Columbia public that an alleged criminal wrong-doing in the transfer of BC Rail to CNR occurred when the three men charged (cabinet aides) engaged in alleged illegal actions. Those three - the force says - did criminal acts and no one else did in that transfer. Embarrassingly, that "force" appears to be made up of what one might properly speak of as "power" in British Columbia, the "Establishment" in British Columbia, what the Left would call "the ruling class".
In the terminology of "Class": the "Establishment", and "the ruling class" refer to the corporate capitalists, the political party in power, the (so-called) "mainstream press and media", the upper ranks of police forces, the courts, and the legal 'establishment' that serves those others.
The divide - that first showed itself as a crack in the surface when the announcement was made that no elected officials were under investigation in the BC Rail Scandal - has spread now to the size and depth, at least, of the Fraser Canyon.
It may be that Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett stepped down from the case for that reason. She did NOT "recuse herself". She had no visible conflict of interest that would make her "recuse herself". Visibly, she freely and voluntarily - seeking her own pleasure - stepped away. And, visibly, she was replaced by Madam Justice Anne MacKenzie.
[Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett's "free and voluntary" stepping away from the Basi, Virk, and Basi case is complicated just a little by the bizarre hearing in which William Berardino made a motion to Associate Chief Justice Patrick Dohm to have Madam Justice Bennett removed on the ground that she couldn't be in two places at once and on the ground that she did some things wrong in the procedures thus far. Though it was a hearing at which a motion was first presented, and nothing whatever proved, quite strangely Mr. Dohm seemed, somehow, to have already decided, because he informed the assembly that he had already chosen the judge who would replace Madam Justice Bennett!]
Invisibly, some might say, 'the ruling class' decided Elizabeth Bennett was allowing the Defence altogether too much room to (A) point to the divide between 'the ruling class' and the accused three men. She was, some might say, (B) permitting a Defence program and policy that more and more and more pointed to the possibility of wrongdoing among the "Establishment", among members of "the ruling class". Some might suggest (C) that the wrongdoings pointed at might well be criminal wrongdoings. When Defence counsel claimed that cabinet materials, BC Rail management materials, RCMP records and briefing notes, etc. were important to the defence of their clients, Madam Justice Bennett said something like: "Well, let's look at them to see if they are, indeed, relevant." And many of them were found to be relevant to the the conduct of the defence of the accused men - and Madam Justice Bennett admitted them to be used as evidence if required.
All the while the people of British Columbia were being given a look at the extraordinary set of actions by the Gordon Campbell government which - against the people's wishes - transferred "their" railway to a private corporate entity now in fact headquartered in the U.S.A. Some people connected to the Gordon Campbell government might, moreover - the people of British Columbia began to see - just have done it in a way that involved criminal behaviour.
Since Madam Justice Anne MacKenzie has taken over as presiding judge on the Basi, Virk, and Basi case nothing that the Defence counsel has sought - as far as I know - has been granted by her. A spokesperson for her and Associate Chief Justice Patrick Dohm has even refused to supply me with a professional resume for her - the judge sitting on the most important criminal trial concerning public affairs in British Columbia's history. Her record of work as a judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia I was told - in effect - is none of my business.
It may not come as a complete surprise to readers that Madam Justice Anne MacKenzie took something less than seven minutes this morning to dismiss both parts of the Defence application for disclosure (to give reasons later). She based her dismissal, for the most part, on the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in the Stinchcombe case (1991). All that needs to be said about it is that "Stinchcombe" sets the terms for disclosure of materials to the Defence. Primarily, Mr. Justice Sopinka, for the Supreme Court of Canada, made clear that evidence in the hands of the Crown is "the property of the public to ensure justice is done". It is not the personal holding of the Crown and so it must be released to Defence in most instances.
The Crown may delay the disclosure. On that basis, I believe, Madam Justice MacKenzie announced her decision today. Defence had argued that, under a ruling by Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett, the Crown cannot unilaterally decide what is relevant to the case for the Defence. Stinchcombe supports that view. Ms. Winteringham, however, claimed irrelevance of material (ostensibly for all concerned). Madam Justice MacKenzie could have reviewed the material right away for relevance. She could have said: "Well let's look at those documents to see if they are, indeed, relevant to the defence of the accused". Instead, she decided to dismiss the application - which doesn't prevent it from being re-born later.
The next meeting of the court on the Basi, Virk, and Basi matter will be held on January 11, 2010. Still to be heard are Defence applications on wire-taps, delay of proceedings, abuse of process, reelection to jury, and change of venue from Vancouver to somewhere else for the trial. All of those matters, however, may take different shape in the next weeks and a wholly different schedule appear before or on January 11, 2010.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Very special thanks to Robin Mathews for his very special reports. This will be his last column for 2009. I believe that Robin Mathews is providing us with a unique set of observations of a trial-event unique in British Columbia. Let's hope that he will be sending us reports on the trial itself in 2010. Happy New Year, Robin. - BC Mary.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
By Robin Mathews
The court was thinly populated. No Michael Bolton, no William Berardino, no Kevin McCullough, no Joseph Doyle. Five lawyers in court. Two "mainstream media journalists". Two other observers in the gallery.
The reason was clear. Madam Justice Anne MacKenzie was arriving to deliver her decision on the Defence application for disclosure of miscellaneous redacted documents and 427 source witness reports (involving, I believe, briefing notes by officers involved with the informers who have claimed "informer privilege" over much of the material).
We sat the other day some hours as Ms. Winteringham (for the Special Crown Prosecutorial team) went through "redacted" documents in which only she and Madam Justice Anne MacKenzie could see what was being discussed - the "redacted" parts.
The word "redacted" is one of those words that is badly chosen and badly used. It is, in fact, a cover-up word. It's correct meaning is "edited, prepared for publication". The courts have mangled the word to make it mean "material that has been blanked out in a text so it can't be read". It would be much closer to the court's meaning if the word chosen was "censored", then the public would know the material is not edited, not revised, not re-written, not re-organized, but censored, blacked out.
When Associate Chief Justice Patrick Dohm "redacted" and "released" the search warrants from the famous legislature and other location "raids" of December 28, 2003 - all he did was to blacken about 80% of the text to protect people that I believe (under standard search warrant protocols) were not entitled to be so "protected". The public's right-to-know and right to "participate" in the administration of justice in British Columbia is under unceasing attack. Mr. Dohm's "redaction", I believe, constituted just such an attack by withholding material the public has a right to examine.
With Dohm's censored search warrants we saw a piece of the iceberg below the water line - the tip of that iceberg being the RCMP announcement on the day of the search warrant raids (before any of the gathered material could be examined) that no elected official was being (or would be) investigated. The announcement, we know, was just short of a lie because up until December 12, then Finance Minister Gary Collins was under investigation and surveillance (the Defence counsel insist).
"Redaction" in the Basi, Virk, and Basi matter has very often been, I believe, a sign of the class war that is being fought over the wrongdoing involved in the corrupt transfer of BC Rail to CNR: "the BC Rail Scandal".
To put the matter crudely (the most precise way to put it in this case), three cabinet aides appointed, in fact, by Gordon Campbell are charged with (variously) 14 counts of fraud, breach of trust, and money laundering as part of a mammoth set of highly dubious, complex, and wide-ranging manipulations, transactions, negotiations, misrepresentations, and - finally - falsifications that constitute "the BC Rail Scandal". That mammoth scenario could not have been master-minded and carried forward by the three men charged - but they are the only ones against whom accusations of criminal wrongdoing have been brought in relation to the scenario. Their counsel insist they are not guilty as charged.
Today's appearance of Madam Justice Anne MacKenzie and her decision on the application for disclosure by the Defence counsel was I believe another (extremely important) clash in that class war.
Put briefly: one force wishes to convey to the British Columbia public that an alleged criminal wrong-doing in the transfer of BC Rail to CNR occurred when the three men charged (cabinet aides) engaged in alleged illegal actions. Those three - the force says - did criminal acts and no one else did in that transfer. Embarrassingly, that "force" appears to be made up of what one might properly speak of as "power" in British Columbia, the "Establishment" in British Columbia, what the Left would call "the ruling class".
In the terminology of "Class": the "Establishment", and "the ruling class" refer to the corporate capitalists, the political party in power, the (so-called) "mainstream press and media", the upper ranks of police forces, the courts, and the legal 'establishment' that serves those others.
The divide - that first showed itself as a crack in the surface when the announcement was made that no elected officials were under investigation in the BC Rail Scandal - has spread now to the size and depth, at least, of the Fraser Canyon.
It may be that Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett stepped down from the case for that reason. She did NOT "recuse herself". She had no visible conflict of interest that would make her "recuse herself". Visibly, she freely and voluntarily - seeking her own pleasure - stepped away. And, visibly, she was replaced by Madam Justice Anne MacKenzie.
[Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett's "free and voluntary" stepping away from the Basi, Virk, and Basi case is complicated just a little by the bizarre hearing in which William Berardino made a motion to Associate Chief Justice Patrick Dohm to have Madam Justice Bennett removed on the ground that she couldn't be in two places at once and on the ground that she did some things wrong in the procedures thus far. Though it was a hearing at which a motion was first presented, and nothing whatever proved, quite strangely Mr. Dohm seemed, somehow, to have already decided, because he informed the assembly that he had already chosen the judge who would replace Madam Justice Bennett!]
Invisibly, some might say, 'the ruling class' decided Elizabeth Bennett was allowing the Defence altogether too much room to (A) point to the divide between 'the ruling class' and the accused three men. She was, some might say, (B) permitting a Defence program and policy that more and more and more pointed to the possibility of wrongdoing among the "Establishment", among members of "the ruling class". Some might suggest (C) that the wrongdoings pointed at might well be criminal wrongdoings. When Defence counsel claimed that cabinet materials, BC Rail management materials, RCMP records and briefing notes, etc. were important to the defence of their clients, Madam Justice Bennett said something like: "Well, let's look at them to see if they are, indeed, relevant." And many of them were found to be relevant to the the conduct of the defence of the accused men - and Madam Justice Bennett admitted them to be used as evidence if required.
All the while the people of British Columbia were being given a look at the extraordinary set of actions by the Gordon Campbell government which - against the people's wishes - transferred "their" railway to a private corporate entity now in fact headquartered in the U.S.A. Some people connected to the Gordon Campbell government might, moreover - the people of British Columbia began to see - just have done it in a way that involved criminal behaviour.
Since Madam Justice Anne MacKenzie has taken over as presiding judge on the Basi, Virk, and Basi case nothing that the Defence counsel has sought - as far as I know - has been granted by her. A spokesperson for her and Associate Chief Justice Patrick Dohm has even refused to supply me with a professional resume for her - the judge sitting on the most important criminal trial concerning public affairs in British Columbia's history. Her record of work as a judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia I was told - in effect - is none of my business.
It may not come as a complete surprise to readers that Madam Justice Anne MacKenzie took something less than seven minutes this morning to dismiss both parts of the Defence application for disclosure (to give reasons later). She based her dismissal, for the most part, on the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in the Stinchcombe case (1991). All that needs to be said about it is that "Stinchcombe" sets the terms for disclosure of materials to the Defence. Primarily, Mr. Justice Sopinka, for the Supreme Court of Canada, made clear that evidence in the hands of the Crown is "the property of the public to ensure justice is done". It is not the personal holding of the Crown and so it must be released to Defence in most instances.
The Crown may delay the disclosure. On that basis, I believe, Madam Justice MacKenzie announced her decision today. Defence had argued that, under a ruling by Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett, the Crown cannot unilaterally decide what is relevant to the case for the Defence. Stinchcombe supports that view. Ms. Winteringham, however, claimed irrelevance of material (ostensibly for all concerned). Madam Justice MacKenzie could have reviewed the material right away for relevance. She could have said: "Well let's look at those documents to see if they are, indeed, relevant to the defence of the accused". Instead, she decided to dismiss the application - which doesn't prevent it from being re-born later.
The next meeting of the court on the Basi, Virk, and Basi matter will be held on January 11, 2010. Still to be heard are Defence applications on wire-taps, delay of proceedings, abuse of process, reelection to jury, and change of venue from Vancouver to somewhere else for the trial. All of those matters, however, may take different shape in the next weeks and a wholly different schedule appear before or on January 11, 2010.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Very special thanks to Robin Mathews for his very special reports. This will be his last column for 2009. I believe that Robin Mathews is providing us with a unique set of observations of a trial-event unique in British Columbia. Let's hope that he will be sending us reports on the trial itself in 2010. Happy New Year, Robin. - BC Mary.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Friday, December 18, 2009
Basi Virk: Pre-trial hearing confirmed for today Dec. 18 in BC Supreme Court, Vancouver, at 10:00 AM. [+ Tiny Quiz]
.
And the reason for today's hearing is given as "JMT" which, in the clear-as-mud terminology of BC Supreme Court listings, is code for "Judgment".
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Tiny Quiz:
Who made this statement (and can we believe it?):
"Clearly there are overtones and undertones of very significant political involvement in this case."
[Send us your best guess, before you look up HERE to find the answer. - BC Mary.]
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
And the reason for today's hearing is given as "JMT" which, in the clear-as-mud terminology of BC Supreme Court listings, is code for "Judgment".
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Tiny Quiz:
Who made this statement (and can we believe it?):
"Clearly there are overtones and undertones of very significant political involvement in this case."
[Send us your best guess, before you look up HERE to find the answer. - BC Mary.]
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Thursday, December 17, 2009
When Bill Berardino was part of the Defence team
.
Back in the days when things were different, the B.C. government was the first jurisdiction in the commonwealth
to file a health care costs recovery action against the tobacco industry. Several other provinces expressed an interest in following BC’s lead.
The plan was to sue the wealthy tobacco companies for the health costs of treating victims of cigarette smoking. I remember that time. Everyone said the province would never win against the wealthy tobacco companies. But they did.
Other provinces watched closely and six - Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan - have now passed or are in the process of passing legislation that will pave the way for suits meant to recoup costs. Read more HERE. [BC Court of Appeal Upholds TDHCCRA - if link isn't working, paste this into your browser.]
The province of British Columbia was represented at the Court by Thomas Berger, O.C., Q.C., Daniel Webster, Q.C., Elliott Myers, Q.C., and Craig Jones of Bull, Housser & Tupper.
Counsel for the tobacco industry defendants included: Jack Giles, Q.C., Jeffrey Kay, and Dylana Bloor of Farris for JTI-Macdonald Corp., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco International, Inc.; Richard Sugden, Q.C., and Craig Dennis of Sugden, McFee & Roos for British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd.; William Berardino, Q.C., David Harris, and Andrea MacKay of Berardino & Harris for Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd.; James Macaulay, Q.C., and Ken Affleck, Q.C., of Macaulay McColl for Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc.; Ross Clark and Cyndi Millar of Davis & Company for Philip Morris Inc. and Philip Morris International Inc.; and Loryl Russell of L.D. Russell & Company for the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers’ Council.
That's right. In that trial, our Special Prosecutors for the BC Rail Case -- Bill Berardino, Andrea MacKay -- were counsel for Imperial Tobacco. They were the part of the defence team and the BC Government was the prosecution. David & Goliath ... or more likely: Goliath & David. Imagine Berardino in a head-on battle against the BC government.
On May 20, 2004, the BC Court of Appeal held in a unanimous decision that the province’s Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act S.B.C. 2000 c. 30 was constitutionally valid. The Act enabled the BC Government to sue to recover health care costs associated with treating tobacco-related disease. The appeal decision paved the way for the province to continue its health care costs recovery action against the tobacco industry for alleged wrongs spanning five decades. {Snip} ...
[I wonder whatever happened to that ... ?]
- BC Mary.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Back in the days when things were different, the B.C. government was the first jurisdiction in the commonwealth
to file a health care costs recovery action against the tobacco industry. Several other provinces expressed an interest in following BC’s lead.
The plan was to sue the wealthy tobacco companies for the health costs of treating victims of cigarette smoking. I remember that time. Everyone said the province would never win against the wealthy tobacco companies. But they did.
Other provinces watched closely and six - Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan - have now passed or are in the process of passing legislation that will pave the way for suits meant to recoup costs. Read more HERE. [BC Court of Appeal Upholds TDHCCRA - if link isn't working, paste this into your browser.]
The province of British Columbia was represented at the Court by Thomas Berger, O.C., Q.C., Daniel Webster, Q.C., Elliott Myers, Q.C., and Craig Jones of Bull, Housser & Tupper.
Counsel for the tobacco industry defendants included: Jack Giles, Q.C., Jeffrey Kay, and Dylana Bloor of Farris for JTI-Macdonald Corp., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco International, Inc.; Richard Sugden, Q.C., and Craig Dennis of Sugden, McFee & Roos for British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd.; William Berardino, Q.C., David Harris, and Andrea MacKay of Berardino & Harris for Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd.; James Macaulay, Q.C., and Ken Affleck, Q.C., of Macaulay McColl for Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc.; Ross Clark and Cyndi Millar of Davis & Company for Philip Morris Inc. and Philip Morris International Inc.; and Loryl Russell of L.D. Russell & Company for the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers’ Council.
That's right. In that trial, our Special Prosecutors for the BC Rail Case -- Bill Berardino, Andrea MacKay -- were counsel for Imperial Tobacco. They were the part of the defence team and the BC Government was the prosecution. David & Goliath ... or more likely: Goliath & David. Imagine Berardino in a head-on battle against the BC government.
On May 20, 2004, the BC Court of Appeal held in a unanimous decision that the province’s Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act S.B.C. 2000 c. 30 was constitutionally valid. The Act enabled the BC Government to sue to recover health care costs associated with treating tobacco-related disease. The appeal decision paved the way for the province to continue its health care costs recovery action against the tobacco industry for alleged wrongs spanning five decades. {Snip} ...
[I wonder whatever happened to that ... ?]
- BC Mary.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
The Supreme Court of Canada promotes open access, but are the lower courts following its lead?
.
I found this article while searching for background information about Supreme Court Justice Anne MacKenzie. It does talk about her a little, yes, but more interestingly it talks about the difficulties of finding out what happens in courtrooms ... about something called "the open court principle" ... and the media's role in making the courts open, and understandable. I couldn't help but think of Robin Mathews, who (without assistance, without pay) attends most hearings then puts his great intellect to work understanding and explaining the trial. As part of those efforts, Robin has battled the issue of obtaining court transcripts, or police investigations, or in fact, the curriculum vitae of the judge who presides over the most important trial ever to come before a high court in British Columbia. - BC Mary.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Courts pay 'lip service' to open access
A statue of Themis: Goddess of Justice
.
By Shannon Kari,
National Post - January 07, 2008
When the trial of three alleged Hells Angels members resumes this week in the Vancouver Law Courts, an observer of the proceeding need only take a few steps outside the fifth-floor courtroom to look through the sloping glass roof that distinguishes the Arthur Erickson-designed building.
From an architectural standpoint, the building conforms to the view of the Supreme Court of Canada that "the administration of justice thrives on exposure to light -- and withers under a cloud of secrecy," as it said in a 2006 decision.
However, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Anne MacKenzie has thrown the equivalent of a judicial tarp over the glass by issuing a publication ban on the entire trial, which she is hearing without a jury.
Citing "the inherent jurisdiction of the court," she issued the ban in a one-sentence ruling.
As a result, the public will not learn about the second of four trials connected to a multi-million-dollar RCMP investigation into the activities of the Hells Angels in B.C. that was dubbed E-Pandora.
Nearly 20 people were arrested in July, 2005, following an investigation the RCMP described as a "national priority" and which involved the controversial use of an alleged steroid trafficker and "enforcer" as a police agent.
For nearly 100 years the Supreme Court of Canada has stressed the importance of truly open court proceedings. In the past 25 years, the principle has been strengthened by the high court, requiring real evidence of a risk to a trial to justify a ban or restrictions on access to public documents.
The lower courts are bound by these principles, yet trial judges often manage to find the exception to these rules.
While the ban imposed by Judge MacKenzie is unusually sweeping, the instinct to issue publication restrictions is not uncommon among her fellow judges in B.C. and in other parts of the country.
The constant tension between the media asserting the public's right to know and a judge's inclination to hold back information if it could potentially have a negative impact on a trial is in sharp contrast to established practices in U.S. courts.
Even in states where cameras are not allowed in the courts, public documents in both criminal and civil proceedings can often be accessed online. It is very rare for judges to impose publication bans at any stage of a criminal trial and jurors are permitted to talk about deliberations and how they reached their verdict. In Canada, the situation is quite different.
"The vast majority [in Canada] pay lip service to the open court principles, but they are resistant," said Michael Skene, a Vancouver lawyer who often acts for the media. "The law has changed and unfortunately many judges have not changed with it."
If courts are truly open, which includes granting access to exhibits that may be broadcast by the media, "the public can make informed comment about the process," Mr. Skene said.
He pointed to the release of the amateur video that showed Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski when he was Tasered by police at Vancouver airport in October.
The incident led to a public outcry over the use of Tasers by police.
If the video had not been released and the officers had faced criminal charges, Mr. Skene said it likely would have been difficult for the media to obtain a copy to broadcast because of speculation that it could impact the right to a fair trial.
But in one of the few rulings that have touched on a jury's obligations, Ontario Superior Court Justice Brian Trafford explained why he decided to allow certain pre-trial information to be published in the notorious Just Desserts murder trial in Toronto.
"Jurors in our society are intelligent persons who are capable of ignoring irrelevant information in accordance with the instructions of the trial judge," said Judge Trafford in the 1997 decision.
"They are presumed to act in accordance with the oath administered to them," he wrote.
Judge Trafford is considered to be one of the top judges in Ontario on the issue of adhering to the open court principle.
But many of his colleagues often invoke an unspecified fear of the jury being tainted to deny or delay access to exhibits during trials, especially in a high-profile proceeding.
The more than three-dozen rulings that Justice James Williams issued during the recent trial of Robert Pickton, many of which had to do with whether certain evidence would be admissible, are still subject to a publication ban. A videotaped police interrogation of Pickton when he was arrested in 2002, also has not been made public.
Another judge is expected to hear submissions from the media on this issue in late January.
Pickton was convicted on Dec. 9 of six counts of second-degree murder and faces a second trial on 20 more murder charges.
The belief that the release of rulings and exhibits might jeopardize Pickton's right to a fair trial on the other charges is "completely artificial," Mr. Skene suggested.
There are academic studies that show pre-trial publicity does not affect a defendant's right to a fair trial, said Edmonton lawyer Fred Kozak, who frequently represents the media.
True public access means the media should be able to show "what you would see and hear if you were in the courtroom," he said.
The concept of access requires "timely access," Mr. Kozak also said.
In the recent trial of a Toronto police officer acquitted of assaulting an anti-poverty protester, Ontario Superior Court Justice Frank Newbould would not deal with media requests for a key videotaped exhibit during the trial. He ultimately released the tape, which had been seen by the jury, after its verdict was issued.
These types of delays are common and are a "practical obscurity" to the open courts principle, Mr. Kozak said.
While there may be resistance among some judges to the open-courts principle, especially in Ontario and B.C., Mr. Kozak suggested there has been progress, especially in Alberta.
Media are routinely granted access to exhibits in criminal trials in the province.
As well, the mandatory ban on publication of bail hearing proceedings was found to be unconstitutional in 2007, by Alberta Court of Queen's Bench Justice Scott Brooker.
The Alberta government is appealing the decision.
Mr. Kozak, who acted for the Edmonton Journal in the case, said it makes no sense to ban reporting on bail hearings when 95% of criminal trials are ultimately heard by a judge alone.
"If you were to ask, what determines whether someone gets out on bail, no one would have a clue, because we can't tell readers about the bail process," Mr. Kozak said. "It creates speculation and mistrust of the justice system."
The obligation to inform the public is one of the reasons the Criminal Justice Branch in B.C. created the role of Communications Counsel, which is unique among the provinces.
Stan Lowe, a senior prosecutor, is Communications Counsel with duties that include responding to media requests for information about specific cases. Mr. Lowe will also attend high-profile proceedings, so there is someone to speak on behalf of the Crown.
"We believe we have an obligation to inform the public of our decisions, educate the public as to our role and the justice system as a whole," Mr. Lowe said. "The adage 'if people want to know about a case, they should come to court' is unrealistic and not acceptable," he said.
The frequently invoked theme that the "justice system has failed," especially in reporting on notorious criminal cases, would be less common if the courts were more open, Mr. Kozak said.
"For the most part, our justice system works very well. Why wouldn't you want the public to know that?"
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
I found this article while searching for background information about Supreme Court Justice Anne MacKenzie. It does talk about her a little, yes, but more interestingly it talks about the difficulties of finding out what happens in courtrooms ... about something called "the open court principle" ... and the media's role in making the courts open, and understandable. I couldn't help but think of Robin Mathews, who (without assistance, without pay) attends most hearings then puts his great intellect to work understanding and explaining the trial. As part of those efforts, Robin has battled the issue of obtaining court transcripts, or police investigations, or in fact, the curriculum vitae of the judge who presides over the most important trial ever to come before a high court in British Columbia. - BC Mary.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Courts pay 'lip service' to open access
A statue of Themis: Goddess of Justice
.
By Shannon Kari,
National Post - January 07, 2008
When the trial of three alleged Hells Angels members resumes this week in the Vancouver Law Courts, an observer of the proceeding need only take a few steps outside the fifth-floor courtroom to look through the sloping glass roof that distinguishes the Arthur Erickson-designed building.
From an architectural standpoint, the building conforms to the view of the Supreme Court of Canada that "the administration of justice thrives on exposure to light -- and withers under a cloud of secrecy," as it said in a 2006 decision.
However, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Anne MacKenzie has thrown the equivalent of a judicial tarp over the glass by issuing a publication ban on the entire trial, which she is hearing without a jury.
Citing "the inherent jurisdiction of the court," she issued the ban in a one-sentence ruling.
As a result, the public will not learn about the second of four trials connected to a multi-million-dollar RCMP investigation into the activities of the Hells Angels in B.C. that was dubbed E-Pandora.
Nearly 20 people were arrested in July, 2005, following an investigation the RCMP described as a "national priority" and which involved the controversial use of an alleged steroid trafficker and "enforcer" as a police agent.
For nearly 100 years the Supreme Court of Canada has stressed the importance of truly open court proceedings. In the past 25 years, the principle has been strengthened by the high court, requiring real evidence of a risk to a trial to justify a ban or restrictions on access to public documents.
The lower courts are bound by these principles, yet trial judges often manage to find the exception to these rules.
While the ban imposed by Judge MacKenzie is unusually sweeping, the instinct to issue publication restrictions is not uncommon among her fellow judges in B.C. and in other parts of the country.
The constant tension between the media asserting the public's right to know and a judge's inclination to hold back information if it could potentially have a negative impact on a trial is in sharp contrast to established practices in U.S. courts.
Even in states where cameras are not allowed in the courts, public documents in both criminal and civil proceedings can often be accessed online. It is very rare for judges to impose publication bans at any stage of a criminal trial and jurors are permitted to talk about deliberations and how they reached their verdict. In Canada, the situation is quite different.
"The vast majority [in Canada] pay lip service to the open court principles, but they are resistant," said Michael Skene, a Vancouver lawyer who often acts for the media. "The law has changed and unfortunately many judges have not changed with it."
If courts are truly open, which includes granting access to exhibits that may be broadcast by the media, "the public can make informed comment about the process," Mr. Skene said.
He pointed to the release of the amateur video that showed Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski when he was Tasered by police at Vancouver airport in October.
The incident led to a public outcry over the use of Tasers by police.
If the video had not been released and the officers had faced criminal charges, Mr. Skene said it likely would have been difficult for the media to obtain a copy to broadcast because of speculation that it could impact the right to a fair trial.
But in one of the few rulings that have touched on a jury's obligations, Ontario Superior Court Justice Brian Trafford explained why he decided to allow certain pre-trial information to be published in the notorious Just Desserts murder trial in Toronto.
"Jurors in our society are intelligent persons who are capable of ignoring irrelevant information in accordance with the instructions of the trial judge," said Judge Trafford in the 1997 decision.
"They are presumed to act in accordance with the oath administered to them," he wrote.
Judge Trafford is considered to be one of the top judges in Ontario on the issue of adhering to the open court principle.
But many of his colleagues often invoke an unspecified fear of the jury being tainted to deny or delay access to exhibits during trials, especially in a high-profile proceeding.
The more than three-dozen rulings that Justice James Williams issued during the recent trial of Robert Pickton, many of which had to do with whether certain evidence would be admissible, are still subject to a publication ban. A videotaped police interrogation of Pickton when he was arrested in 2002, also has not been made public.
Another judge is expected to hear submissions from the media on this issue in late January.
Pickton was convicted on Dec. 9 of six counts of second-degree murder and faces a second trial on 20 more murder charges.
The belief that the release of rulings and exhibits might jeopardize Pickton's right to a fair trial on the other charges is "completely artificial," Mr. Skene suggested.
There are academic studies that show pre-trial publicity does not affect a defendant's right to a fair trial, said Edmonton lawyer Fred Kozak, who frequently represents the media.
True public access means the media should be able to show "what you would see and hear if you were in the courtroom," he said.
The concept of access requires "timely access," Mr. Kozak also said.
In the recent trial of a Toronto police officer acquitted of assaulting an anti-poverty protester, Ontario Superior Court Justice Frank Newbould would not deal with media requests for a key videotaped exhibit during the trial. He ultimately released the tape, which had been seen by the jury, after its verdict was issued.
These types of delays are common and are a "practical obscurity" to the open courts principle, Mr. Kozak said.
While there may be resistance among some judges to the open-courts principle, especially in Ontario and B.C., Mr. Kozak suggested there has been progress, especially in Alberta.
Media are routinely granted access to exhibits in criminal trials in the province.
As well, the mandatory ban on publication of bail hearing proceedings was found to be unconstitutional in 2007, by Alberta Court of Queen's Bench Justice Scott Brooker.
The Alberta government is appealing the decision.
Mr. Kozak, who acted for the Edmonton Journal in the case, said it makes no sense to ban reporting on bail hearings when 95% of criminal trials are ultimately heard by a judge alone.
"If you were to ask, what determines whether someone gets out on bail, no one would have a clue, because we can't tell readers about the bail process," Mr. Kozak said. "It creates speculation and mistrust of the justice system."
The obligation to inform the public is one of the reasons the Criminal Justice Branch in B.C. created the role of Communications Counsel, which is unique among the provinces.
Stan Lowe, a senior prosecutor, is Communications Counsel with duties that include responding to media requests for information about specific cases. Mr. Lowe will also attend high-profile proceedings, so there is someone to speak on behalf of the Crown.
"We believe we have an obligation to inform the public of our decisions, educate the public as to our role and the justice system as a whole," Mr. Lowe said. "The adage 'if people want to know about a case, they should come to court' is unrealistic and not acceptable," he said.
The frequently invoked theme that the "justice system has failed," especially in reporting on notorious criminal cases, would be less common if the courts were more open, Mr. Kozak said.
"For the most part, our justice system works very well. Why wouldn't you want the public to know that?"
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Basi Virk in Courtroom 54, Dec. 15, 2009
.
By Robin Mathews
With considerably better humour than yesterday, argument continued today about the disclosure application focussed on yesterday. Mr. McCullough for the Defence opened the day by discussing the apparent disagreement concerning the process of coming (or failing to come) to disclosure.
Defence and presiding judge appeared to be of one mind about the differences (and - apparent - confusion) that occurred.
Ms. Winteringham for the Special Crown Prosecutorial team went through more documents and made a case for withholding disclosure. She said the Federal prosecutor's report on the wire-taps is available to the Defence. Essentially she argued that the materials were reviewed by more than one agency - one being a federal prosecutor.
Citing precedent, she asserted that application for disclosure was not to be "a fishing expedition" by Defence (in what might be a blind attempt to pull in anything possible and then have a look at it). She said also that, by precedent, material denied at one point might be disclosed at another. The Crown also holds that the application for disclosure of wire-tap materials is premature - before Defence files its Charter Application relating to the wire-tap processes.
In general, the Prosecution wishes to withhold materials sought.
For the Defence, Kevin McCullough made several points. Specifically, he argued that Defence is not on a fishing expedition but has said why the material sought is relevant - Defence seeks to know if material submitted from informers has been judged reliable, or if it is contradictory of valid evidence gathered elsewhere. Some materials that have been disclosed, he argued, have been presented by the Crown as believed to be reliable when it has not been. Information gathered from disclosure reached by impartial review would stand as a basis, where unreliable, for cross-examination in trial (quite apart form any Charter Application about the use of wire-tap).
He pointed, further, to the fact that almost all the reporting on Dave Basi was undertaken in relation to the Drug investigation (not the BC Rail Scandal), and - as Michael Bolton said in court and outside the courtroom - allegations in that matter were wholly false and all suspicions of Basi in the Drug investigation were erased.
Mr. McCullough argued, in addition, that materials gathered by informers need not be covered in a blanket way by informer privilege, because some of it may be released to Defence without any chance of identifying the informer.
The flow of argument is clear: Crown believes the materials sought need no further review as to the claims they make for it. The Defence is unsatisfied with the claims, sees a need to test impartially for relevance and accuracy, and believes that Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett rejected the Crown as decider of relevance and named herself, as judge, as final arbitrar of the use to be made of materials applied for by Defence - as to relevance and informer privilege.
Essentially, Defence is asking Madam Justice Anne MacKenzie to review the materials and to make findings as requested. The Crown holds review by her is unnecessary.
What Madam Justice Anne MacKenzie decides - that will illuminate her attitude to the case as a whole. There is no doubt she wishes (as all in the matter have claimed they also wish) to bring the matter to trial without delay. She must decide whether denying the Defense the review they request will speed the trial without, in fact, doing serious damage to the (fair) way in which they may conduct defence of their clients. (Defence claims it will be disabled in that respect unless the review is undertaken.)
Her general demeanour, as I observed it yesterday, suggested she would give short shrift to the wishes of the Defence. Today she appeared to be a great deal more serious about the terms of the Defence application. At ten in the morning of December 18 we will learn her final position.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
By Robin Mathews
With considerably better humour than yesterday, argument continued today about the disclosure application focussed on yesterday. Mr. McCullough for the Defence opened the day by discussing the apparent disagreement concerning the process of coming (or failing to come) to disclosure.
Defence and presiding judge appeared to be of one mind about the differences (and - apparent - confusion) that occurred.
Ms. Winteringham for the Special Crown Prosecutorial team went through more documents and made a case for withholding disclosure. She said the Federal prosecutor's report on the wire-taps is available to the Defence. Essentially she argued that the materials were reviewed by more than one agency - one being a federal prosecutor.
Citing precedent, she asserted that application for disclosure was not to be "a fishing expedition" by Defence (in what might be a blind attempt to pull in anything possible and then have a look at it). She said also that, by precedent, material denied at one point might be disclosed at another. The Crown also holds that the application for disclosure of wire-tap materials is premature - before Defence files its Charter Application relating to the wire-tap processes.
In general, the Prosecution wishes to withhold materials sought.
For the Defence, Kevin McCullough made several points. Specifically, he argued that Defence is not on a fishing expedition but has said why the material sought is relevant - Defence seeks to know if material submitted from informers has been judged reliable, or if it is contradictory of valid evidence gathered elsewhere. Some materials that have been disclosed, he argued, have been presented by the Crown as believed to be reliable when it has not been. Information gathered from disclosure reached by impartial review would stand as a basis, where unreliable, for cross-examination in trial (quite apart form any Charter Application about the use of wire-tap).
He pointed, further, to the fact that almost all the reporting on Dave Basi was undertaken in relation to the Drug investigation (not the BC Rail Scandal), and - as Michael Bolton said in court and outside the courtroom - allegations in that matter were wholly false and all suspicions of Basi in the Drug investigation were erased.
Mr. McCullough argued, in addition, that materials gathered by informers need not be covered in a blanket way by informer privilege, because some of it may be released to Defence without any chance of identifying the informer.
The flow of argument is clear: Crown believes the materials sought need no further review as to the claims they make for it. The Defence is unsatisfied with the claims, sees a need to test impartially for relevance and accuracy, and believes that Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett rejected the Crown as decider of relevance and named herself, as judge, as final arbitrar of the use to be made of materials applied for by Defence - as to relevance and informer privilege.
Essentially, Defence is asking Madam Justice Anne MacKenzie to review the materials and to make findings as requested. The Crown holds review by her is unnecessary.
What Madam Justice Anne MacKenzie decides - that will illuminate her attitude to the case as a whole. There is no doubt she wishes (as all in the matter have claimed they also wish) to bring the matter to trial without delay. She must decide whether denying the Defense the review they request will speed the trial without, in fact, doing serious damage to the (fair) way in which they may conduct defence of their clients. (Defence claims it will be disabled in that respect unless the review is undertaken.)
Her general demeanour, as I observed it yesterday, suggested she would give short shrift to the wishes of the Defence. Today she appeared to be a great deal more serious about the terms of the Defence application. At ten in the morning of December 18 we will learn her final position.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Basi laundered drug cash through Liberal Party, informant contends
.
By Mark Hume
The Globe and Mail - Dec. 15, 2009
Vancouver — A secret informant told police in 2003 that Dave Basi – one of the central figures in a political corruption trial – was laundering drug money through the Liberal Party, the Supreme Court of British Columbia has heard.
{Snip} ...
The informant's allegation was raised and immediately rejected as “totally false” by Mr. Basi's lawyer, Michael Bolton, during a defence application seeking disclosure of more than 400 RCMP files.
Lawyers defending Mr. Basi, Bob Virk and Aneal Basi, who are charged with trading in confidential government information surrounding the 2003 sale of BC Rail, are asking to see the RCMP's secret informant files, which are known as “source debriefing notes.”
Mr. Bolton, who represents Dave Basi, and Kevin McCullough, the lawyer for Mr. Virk, told court the debriefing notes will show police relied on false information when getting authorizations to wiretap their clients.
Mr. Bolton said the RCMP obtained four wiretap authorizations in Victoria in 2003 while conducting a drug investigation of Jasmohan Singh Bains, who in 2008 was sentenced to nine years for conspiracy to traffic cocaine.
“Mr. Basi was a target in two [of those four wiretaps] ... [but] none of the authorizations ever related to any part of the BC Rail investigation,” Mr. Bolton said.
Mr. Bolton said the BC Rail investigation flowed from the drug case – but police made the connection based on falsehoods.
“[An informant] said that Mr. Basi was cleaning some of Mr. Bains' drug money. Informant A ... said Mr. Basi was cleaning some of that drug money through the Liberal party ... [and] we believe that is totally false,” Mr. Bolton said.
He said the false statements from informants sent police in pursuit of Mr. Basi, which led to wiretaps, and, in December, 2003, an unprecedented raid of the legislature, where Mr. Basi and Mr. Virk worked as ministerial assistants. (The two men were also key political operatives of both the federal and provincial Liberals in B.C.)
{Snip} ...
Twice during the day, the public gallery was cleared so lawyers could discuss the issue in camera. During one of those closed sessions, defence lawyers were also asked to leave so the judge could hear details about a secret informant.
Judge MacKenzie said she would give a ruling Friday.
Click HERE for the unabridged column by Mark Hume.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
By Mark Hume
The Globe and Mail - Dec. 15, 2009
Vancouver — A secret informant told police in 2003 that Dave Basi – one of the central figures in a political corruption trial – was laundering drug money through the Liberal Party, the Supreme Court of British Columbia has heard.
{Snip} ...
The informant's allegation was raised and immediately rejected as “totally false” by Mr. Basi's lawyer, Michael Bolton, during a defence application seeking disclosure of more than 400 RCMP files.
Lawyers defending Mr. Basi, Bob Virk and Aneal Basi, who are charged with trading in confidential government information surrounding the 2003 sale of BC Rail, are asking to see the RCMP's secret informant files, which are known as “source debriefing notes.”
Mr. Bolton, who represents Dave Basi, and Kevin McCullough, the lawyer for Mr. Virk, told court the debriefing notes will show police relied on false information when getting authorizations to wiretap their clients.
Mr. Bolton said the RCMP obtained four wiretap authorizations in Victoria in 2003 while conducting a drug investigation of Jasmohan Singh Bains, who in 2008 was sentenced to nine years for conspiracy to traffic cocaine.
“Mr. Basi was a target in two [of those four wiretaps] ... [but] none of the authorizations ever related to any part of the BC Rail investigation,” Mr. Bolton said.
Mr. Bolton said the BC Rail investigation flowed from the drug case – but police made the connection based on falsehoods.
“[An informant] said that Mr. Basi was cleaning some of Mr. Bains' drug money. Informant A ... said Mr. Basi was cleaning some of that drug money through the Liberal party ... [and] we believe that is totally false,” Mr. Bolton said.
He said the false statements from informants sent police in pursuit of Mr. Basi, which led to wiretaps, and, in December, 2003, an unprecedented raid of the legislature, where Mr. Basi and Mr. Virk worked as ministerial assistants. (The two men were also key political operatives of both the federal and provincial Liberals in B.C.)
{Snip} ...
Twice during the day, the public gallery was cleared so lawyers could discuss the issue in camera. During one of those closed sessions, defence lawyers were also asked to leave so the judge could hear details about a secret informant.
Judge MacKenzie said she would give a ruling Friday.
Click HERE for the unabridged column by Mark Hume.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Basi-Virk news for Dec. 15, 2009
.
Crown acted appropriately with Basi-Virk informer, judge rules
BY IAN MULGREW
CANWEST NEWS SERVICE - DECEMBER 15, 2009
B.C. Supreme Court Justice Anne MacKenzie has ruled the prosecution properly asserted legal privilege to protect the identity of a confidential informant in the B.C. Rail corruption trial.
The justice conducted an in-camera hearing yesterday, sanctioned by the Supreme Court of Canada, at which defence attorneys, the three accused and the public were banned.
After reviewing Crown concerns, MacKenzie said special prosecutor Bill Berardino had acted appropriately.
The previous trial judge, Justice Elizabeth Bennett, who was replaced after being appointed to the B.C. Court of Appeal, initially said the defence could attend the closed-door hearing. But the prosecution balked and appealed all the way to the country's highest court, saying it would consider staying the charges rather than reveal the confidential informant's identity ...
Read Ian Mulgrew's full column HERE.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Our dauntless friend, North Van's Grumps, turns in this report for the BVB hearing of Dec. 15, 2009:
North Van's Grumps writes:
Its settled then, at least that's the way it went today (Dec. 15th, 2009). Madame Justice MacKenzie agrees with Defense Consul that neither the Crown via the Special Prosecutor eg. Ms Andrea Mackay, nor the RCMP were in a position by which they could determine whether the information is relevant or not. And we are talking here about secret informants. That jurisdiction lies solely with the Justtice MacKenzie as stated by Justice Bennett two years ago.
I would like to throw in one other category that shouldn't have had the right to determining what's relevant as evidence .... Ken Dobell as Deputy Minister to the Premier and Cabinet Secretarty.
"Ken Dobell, the former deputy minister to Premier Gordon Campbell, has admitted he reviewed confidential government documents seized by police in the B.C. Legislature raid case without signing an undertaking as required by a protocol created by the Special Prosecutor."
From Bill Tieleman:
"Dobell, speaking to the Globe and Mail's Mark Hume, claimed he was not part of the "political side" of Campbell's office and as cabinet secretary he was part of an "independent, bureaucratic office."
That, Dobell said, meant he had not contradicted Campbell's claim in the Legislature last year that the premier's office was not involved in disclosure of evidence issues.
"There is a special prosecutor involved in this. The Premier's Office does not have a direct input into that ... This Premier's Office is not involved directly with that," Campbell said in 2007.
Dobell now says that his role as cabinet secretary was different.
"The cabinet secretary ... is an independent, bureaucratic office, it's not a political office, and in that sense, nobody in the Premier's office, on the political side, was involved in the issue," Dobell told Hume.
And Dobell says he was never asked by government lawyer George Copley to sign an undertaking as required by the protocol."
_________________________________
Thanks, N.V.G.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Crown acted appropriately with Basi-Virk informer, judge rules
BY IAN MULGREW
CANWEST NEWS SERVICE - DECEMBER 15, 2009
B.C. Supreme Court Justice Anne MacKenzie has ruled the prosecution properly asserted legal privilege to protect the identity of a confidential informant in the B.C. Rail corruption trial.
The justice conducted an in-camera hearing yesterday, sanctioned by the Supreme Court of Canada, at which defence attorneys, the three accused and the public were banned.
After reviewing Crown concerns, MacKenzie said special prosecutor Bill Berardino had acted appropriately.
The previous trial judge, Justice Elizabeth Bennett, who was replaced after being appointed to the B.C. Court of Appeal, initially said the defence could attend the closed-door hearing. But the prosecution balked and appealed all the way to the country's highest court, saying it would consider staying the charges rather than reveal the confidential informant's identity ...
Read Ian Mulgrew's full column HERE.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Our dauntless friend, North Van's Grumps, turns in this report for the BVB hearing of Dec. 15, 2009:
North Van's Grumps writes:
Its settled then, at least that's the way it went today (Dec. 15th, 2009). Madame Justice MacKenzie agrees with Defense Consul that neither the Crown via the Special Prosecutor eg. Ms Andrea Mackay, nor the RCMP were in a position by which they could determine whether the information is relevant or not. And we are talking here about secret informants. That jurisdiction lies solely with the Justtice MacKenzie as stated by Justice Bennett two years ago.
I would like to throw in one other category that shouldn't have had the right to determining what's relevant as evidence .... Ken Dobell as Deputy Minister to the Premier and Cabinet Secretarty.
"Ken Dobell, the former deputy minister to Premier Gordon Campbell, has admitted he reviewed confidential government documents seized by police in the B.C. Legislature raid case without signing an undertaking as required by a protocol created by the Special Prosecutor."
From Bill Tieleman:
"Dobell, speaking to the Globe and Mail's Mark Hume, claimed he was not part of the "political side" of Campbell's office and as cabinet secretary he was part of an "independent, bureaucratic office."
That, Dobell said, meant he had not contradicted Campbell's claim in the Legislature last year that the premier's office was not involved in disclosure of evidence issues.
"There is a special prosecutor involved in this. The Premier's Office does not have a direct input into that ... This Premier's Office is not involved directly with that," Campbell said in 2007.
Dobell now says that his role as cabinet secretary was different.
"The cabinet secretary ... is an independent, bureaucratic office, it's not a political office, and in that sense, nobody in the Premier's office, on the political side, was involved in the issue," Dobell told Hume.
And Dobell says he was never asked by government lawyer George Copley to sign an undertaking as required by the protocol."
_________________________________
Thanks, N.V.G.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
