Monday, December 03, 2007
Public excluded from BC Rail hearing
.
Anonymous comment tells us: THE PUBLIC AND THE MEDIA WERE EXCLUDED FROM THE HEARING. NOT CLEAR IF THE DEFENSE WERE EXCLUDED AS WELL.
JUDGES DECISION AT 2:00 pm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PUBLIC EXCLUDED FROM BC RAIL CASE IN-CAMERA HEARING
Neal Hall, The Vancouver Sun -- Monday, December 03, 2007
VANCOUVER - The public was briefly excluded Monday during a rare in-camera hearing at a trial of two former provincial government political aides accused of corruption offences. B.C. Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Bennett allowed the in-camera hearing, which lasted less than an hour, to hear details from the Crown about why the closed-door hearing was needed.
The judge then opened the court to hear applications from the media, which opposed holding an in-camera hearing.
After the in-camera hearing ended, the judge stated that the issue involves Crown disclosure of documents to determine if privilege is attached.
The media argued that a temporary publication ban should be imposed as an alternative to closing the court to the public.
The judge, who imposed a temporary publication ban on the proceedings, said she will make a ruling at 2 p.m. on the media application.
Outside court, defence lawyer Michael Bolton, representing the accused Dave Basi, said the Crown has advised the defence that the prosecution seeks to exclude the accused and their lawyers while the privilege claim is being heard.
"It goes well beyond an in-camera hearing," the lawyer explained. "It's very, very, very unusual to the point of being almost an unconscionable concept to exclude the accused person from part of his trial."
Bolton added: "It's never a good thing for judicial proceedings to be shrouded in secrecy and censorship."
But the judge is applying the law set by the Supreme Court of Canada, he said. {Snip} ...
nhall@png.canwest.com
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=155ecb3c-964c-42c2-a3b6-23984b6ded47&k=65303
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Many thanks to our Anonymous reporter for this. - BC Mary.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Anonymous comment tells us: THE PUBLIC AND THE MEDIA WERE EXCLUDED FROM THE HEARING. NOT CLEAR IF THE DEFENSE WERE EXCLUDED AS WELL.
JUDGES DECISION AT 2:00 pm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PUBLIC EXCLUDED FROM BC RAIL CASE IN-CAMERA HEARING
Neal Hall, The Vancouver Sun -- Monday, December 03, 2007
VANCOUVER - The public was briefly excluded Monday during a rare in-camera hearing at a trial of two former provincial government political aides accused of corruption offences. B.C. Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Bennett allowed the in-camera hearing, which lasted less than an hour, to hear details from the Crown about why the closed-door hearing was needed.
The judge then opened the court to hear applications from the media, which opposed holding an in-camera hearing.
After the in-camera hearing ended, the judge stated that the issue involves Crown disclosure of documents to determine if privilege is attached.
The media argued that a temporary publication ban should be imposed as an alternative to closing the court to the public.
The judge, who imposed a temporary publication ban on the proceedings, said she will make a ruling at 2 p.m. on the media application.
Outside court, defence lawyer Michael Bolton, representing the accused Dave Basi, said the Crown has advised the defence that the prosecution seeks to exclude the accused and their lawyers while the privilege claim is being heard.
"It goes well beyond an in-camera hearing," the lawyer explained. "It's very, very, very unusual to the point of being almost an unconscionable concept to exclude the accused person from part of his trial."
Bolton added: "It's never a good thing for judicial proceedings to be shrouded in secrecy and censorship."
But the judge is applying the law set by the Supreme Court of Canada, he said. {Snip} ...
nhall@png.canwest.com
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=155ecb3c-964c-42c2-a3b6-23984b6ded47&k=65303
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Many thanks to our Anonymous reporter for this. - BC Mary.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Comments:
<< Home
I heard somehwere that Bill T. would be in court first thing, then absent for a short time , then to return. I'm sure he will give us the information as to what he hears and what we all wish we could hear as well. DL
# posted by 
: December 3, 2007 at 3:10 p.m.
: December 3, 2007 at 3:10 p.m.
Okay, so the question arises, "what law set by the Supreme Court of Canada?" Surely it can't be the one that we have all been speculating with. Because that law specifically deals with confidential informants. NOT a "question of crown disclosure of documents to determine if privilege is attached."
So what is it that the Crown wants to hide? Is it the BC Rail illegal contract itself? If so that doesn't fly because all along that document was supposed to be a public document.
The more that Berardino brings up in this case (and he is supposed to be acting on the part of the PUBLIC) the more it stinks of coverup.
So what is it that the Crown wants to hide? Is it the BC Rail illegal contract itself? If so that doesn't fly because all along that document was supposed to be a public document.
The more that Berardino brings up in this case (and he is supposed to be acting on the part of the PUBLIC) the more it stinks of coverup.
# posted by : December 3, 2007 at 4:49 p.m.
: December 3, 2007 at 4:49 p.m.
Mary. Bill Tieleman just posted an appology for an emergency that took him away from the trial room. He says that emergency deals with the Leg Raid case.
# posted by : December 3, 2007 at 6:35 p.m.
: December 3, 2007 at 6:35 p.m.
So do we know if Tuesday's court hearings will be "in camera" or not?
# posted by : December 3, 2007 at 7:07 p.m.
: December 3, 2007 at 7:07 p.m.
So do we know if Tuesday's court hearings will be "in camera" or not?
# posted by : December 3, 2007 at 7:07 p.m.
: December 3, 2007 at 7:07 p.m.
Astonishing post at B. Tieleman's!
What could it possibly be?
Wild-eyed speculation at my place.
RossK
.
Post a Comment
What could it possibly be?
Wild-eyed speculation at my place.
RossK
.
<< Home
