Saturday, March 24, 2007


Legislature raid case to go ahead

Perhaps we should remind ourselves of the likely dates for new developments in the Basi, Virk, Basi trial. Here's what Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Bennett said on March 8 about the timing:
Legislature raid case to go ahead, judge says

Despite defence application for disclosure, pretrial motions set to begin on April 16
The Globe and Mail - 8 March 2007

VANCOUVER -- The judge in a case that involved an unprecedented police raid on the British Columbia Legislature made it clear yesterday the trial is going ahead despite a recent defence application for disclosure that led to some media speculation proceedings might be stayed.

"The public interest in having this case heard outweighs just about everything else," Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett of the B.C. Supreme Court said after hearing another lengthy wrangle over the disclosure process, during which it was revealed that the defence may seek privileged cabinet documents.

Judge Bennett's statement was unprompted, but in the context of the testy legal sparring that preceded it, the comment was clearly meant to signal the oft-delayed trial is still on track for pretrial motions to begin on April 16.

She set April 2 for the next court hearing.

Full story in The Globe and Mail at:

If you compare Hume's coverage to Tieleman, I would take Tieleman's coverage hands down. Mary you should post Tieleman's very accurate report of what happened the last time there was a court appearance. Maybe Tieleman's coverage will shame the others into actually sitting down and covering this unfolding drama.
I appreciate your celebration of Bill Tieleman's careful journalism and I bet he appreciates it too.

But I surely wasn't comparing journalists.

My point was to repeat the dates of key events mentioned in the article by Mark Hume, who made everything sound a bit cheerful, despite the agonizing slowness of developments leading up to the B.C. Rail trial.

Drag-butt news isn't my favourite posting, so I decided not to rant about the 100% lack of information arising from either the March 14 filing (Crown's response to the 26 Feb. Application for Disclosure) or the March 21 filing of the Defence's response to that; plus the Charter challenges by the defence. We don't even know if these two significant events happened on March 14 & 21.

And that, dear anon, is why that little bit of Mark Hume's story was posted ... it wasn't intended as a complete coverage. Not at all.

But, like you I hope, I visit Bill's blog on a daily basis.
I knew that Bill would certainly have published anything he's found.

By the way (hear ye, hear ye) it's Bill's 50th birthday pretty soon ... big celebration planned ... those dates are definitely on his site. That's at:
Post a Comment

<< Home