Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Public may be locked out again ... but who can tell?
.
This is not right.
The Supreme Court Listings are there to provide the public with information necessary to attend a hearing or trial. There are places provided in each courtroom for the public.
Tuesday's Supreme Court Listings, as I mentioned yesterday, had no mention of Case #23299, the Basi-Virk-BCRail Trial. No mention. Nothing.
Robin Mathews, who had been in court on Monday, saw no reason (heard no reason, was given no reason) for him to stay home on Tuesday. So he attended. Very politely, the sheriff asked the old professor to leave the courtroom. The doors were locked behind him.
Now I ask you: is this right? Is this fair? Is this even necessary? I think not.
Surely the Supreme Court machine could say: Case #23299 in camera today. Public admittance temporarily denied.
How hard is that? Wouldn't it be a welcome gesture to the long-suffering public that their time, their faith in the justice system, their hopes, are deserving these small acts of consideration? And that perhaps the justice system welcomes our return a.s.a.p.?
What have we done wrong, to be treated in such a way?
It was no error. Today (Wednesday Dec. 5) there is no listing for Case #23299, either.
- BC Mary.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
This is not right.
The Supreme Court Listings are there to provide the public with information necessary to attend a hearing or trial. There are places provided in each courtroom for the public.
Tuesday's Supreme Court Listings, as I mentioned yesterday, had no mention of Case #23299, the Basi-Virk-BCRail Trial. No mention. Nothing.
Robin Mathews, who had been in court on Monday, saw no reason (heard no reason, was given no reason) for him to stay home on Tuesday. So he attended. Very politely, the sheriff asked the old professor to leave the courtroom. The doors were locked behind him.
Now I ask you: is this right? Is this fair? Is this even necessary? I think not.
Surely the Supreme Court machine could say: Case #23299 in camera today. Public admittance temporarily denied.
How hard is that? Wouldn't it be a welcome gesture to the long-suffering public that their time, their faith in the justice system, their hopes, are deserving these small acts of consideration? And that perhaps the justice system welcomes our return a.s.a.p.?
What have we done wrong, to be treated in such a way?
It was no error. Today (Wednesday Dec. 5) there is no listing for Case #23299, either.
- BC Mary.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Comments:
<< Home
IN BRIEF
Defence wants to hear details in corruption case
MARK HUME
December 5, 2007
Vancouver -- Should defence attorneys be allowed to attend while prosecutors present secret information to the judge in a case involving alleged political corruption?
That's the question Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett of the Supreme Court of B.C. is expected to rule on today, after hearing arguments from the defence in a closed court. Judge Bennett went behind closed doors to hear from the defence after ruling against an application brought by media lawyers who want the session held in open court.
Lawyers, including Roger McConchie, representing The Globe and Mail, CTV and The Canadian Press, had argued for openness and the public right to know.
Judge Bennett said she is aware of the high interest in the case against Udhe Singh (Dave) Basi and Bobby Singh Virk and Aneal Basi - former government employees facing fraud, money laundering and influence peddling charges. But she said that, in order not to compromise the justice system, the the Crown's presentation may have to be heard in camera.
D. Love
Defence wants to hear details in corruption case
MARK HUME
December 5, 2007
Vancouver -- Should defence attorneys be allowed to attend while prosecutors present secret information to the judge in a case involving alleged political corruption?
That's the question Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett of the Supreme Court of B.C. is expected to rule on today, after hearing arguments from the defence in a closed court. Judge Bennett went behind closed doors to hear from the defence after ruling against an application brought by media lawyers who want the session held in open court.
Lawyers, including Roger McConchie, representing The Globe and Mail, CTV and The Canadian Press, had argued for openness and the public right to know.
Judge Bennett said she is aware of the high interest in the case against Udhe Singh (Dave) Basi and Bobby Singh Virk and Aneal Basi - former government employees facing fraud, money laundering and influence peddling charges. But she said that, in order not to compromise the justice system, the the Crown's presentation may have to be heard in camera.
D. Love
# posted by 
: December 5, 2007 at 9:04 a.m.
: December 5, 2007 at 9:04 a.m.
It is disturbing that the justice system is pandering to the guilty in this whole sordid affair.
Added to this, the break-in of Bill T's office. The corrupted are really getting nervous of being outed. Perhaps Captain Campbell and his ship is finally sinking!!
Added to this, the break-in of Bill T's office. The corrupted are really getting nervous of being outed. Perhaps Captain Campbell and his ship is finally sinking!!
# posted by : December 5, 2007 at 9:21 a.m.
: December 5, 2007 at 9:21 a.m.
.
Anonymous 9:21,
Since we can't tell who you're talking about when you refer to "the guilty", your comment wasn't rejected.
But just so you know: nobody is guilty until proven guilty in court.
That's what this web-site is all about: hoping, helping, trying to clarify this whole B.C. Rail issue until it gets into court where evidence can be given under oath.
DL, thanks for being on the look-out for suitable stories.
Mark Hume adds a feather to his tuque for this one ... I agree with Lawyer Bolton, that it's outrageous, to imagine any evidence being provided in such secrecy that the defence couldn't know about it.
But then, what if the evidence would serve to prove the defendants innocent?
.
Post a Comment
Anonymous 9:21,
Since we can't tell who you're talking about when you refer to "the guilty", your comment wasn't rejected.
But just so you know: nobody is guilty until proven guilty in court.
That's what this web-site is all about: hoping, helping, trying to clarify this whole B.C. Rail issue until it gets into court where evidence can be given under oath.
DL, thanks for being on the look-out for suitable stories.
Mark Hume adds a feather to his tuque for this one ... I agree with Lawyer Bolton, that it's outrageous, to imagine any evidence being provided in such secrecy that the defence couldn't know about it.
But then, what if the evidence would serve to prove the defendants innocent?
.
<< Home
