Thursday, December 18, 2008
Did Special Prosecutor Berardino drag his feet when applying for a one-day hearing by the Supreme Court of Canada?
.
Apparently not. Bill Tieleman's update:
UPDATE - 2 p.m. Thursday
Futher to the item below, I have just spoken with Michael Bolton, defence counsel for David Basi.
Bolton confirms that Special Prosecutor Bill Berardino did request and receive an expedited Supreme Court of Canada hearing date on the secret witness issue.
"The Special Prosecutor sought an expedited hearing and the respondents, Basi and Virk, consented to an order for an expedited hearing," Bolton said today in an interview.
I hasten to point out that some posters on this blog and elsewhere have suggested the contrary - that the April hearing date could have been sooner if an expedited hearing was requested - that is simply inaccurate.
On other issues, Bolton confirmed that there was a very brief hearing on Friday December 12 and that further arguments by W.P. Riley, representing the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, will be heard on Monday January 5, 2009 at 10 a.m. When those arguments are concluded Justice Elizabeth Bennett will issue a ruling on claims of litigation privilege and on other disclosure issues.
Pre-trial hearings then resume again the week of January 19, 2009 and also January 26-29 to hear defence arguments that the RCMP should be seen to have deemed to waive privilege on some documents not yet disclosed.
Lastly, hearings on defence Freedom Of Information requests will begin on February 16.
I hope this clarifies some issues and ends speculation regarding the Supreme Court of Canada hearing date.
==
BASI-Virk: Tentative date of April 22, 2009 has been set for the Supreme Court of Canada appeal by Special Prosecutor on secret witness issue ... Bill Tieleman's blog has the complete text from the Supreme Court of Canada's web-site.
Don't miss the comment contributed on Bill's site by "PG" who was asking the hard questions: why didn't Berardino accept an earlier date, when there were openings in February 2009? Why did he delay the Basi Virk trial until April 2009? Bill's response is shown above ... and "PG" has this to say in reply:
And an update from "PG" to Bill Tieleman:
Read more and have your say at Bill's place. - BC Mary.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Interesting comments are coming in to The Legislature Raids, in response to the Berardino scheduling. G West asks serious new questions (below) and Bill Tieleman has given his reply at his place:
Apparently not. Bill Tieleman's update:
UPDATE - 2 p.m. Thursday
Futher to the item below, I have just spoken with Michael Bolton, defence counsel for David Basi.
Bolton confirms that Special Prosecutor Bill Berardino did request and receive an expedited Supreme Court of Canada hearing date on the secret witness issue.
"The Special Prosecutor sought an expedited hearing and the respondents, Basi and Virk, consented to an order for an expedited hearing," Bolton said today in an interview.
I hasten to point out that some posters on this blog and elsewhere have suggested the contrary - that the April hearing date could have been sooner if an expedited hearing was requested - that is simply inaccurate.
On other issues, Bolton confirmed that there was a very brief hearing on Friday December 12 and that further arguments by W.P. Riley, representing the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, will be heard on Monday January 5, 2009 at 10 a.m. When those arguments are concluded Justice Elizabeth Bennett will issue a ruling on claims of litigation privilege and on other disclosure issues.
Pre-trial hearings then resume again the week of January 19, 2009 and also January 26-29 to hear defence arguments that the RCMP should be seen to have deemed to waive privilege on some documents not yet disclosed.
Lastly, hearings on defence Freedom Of Information requests will begin on February 16.
I hope this clarifies some issues and ends speculation regarding the Supreme Court of Canada hearing date.
==
BASI-Virk: Tentative date of April 22, 2009 has been set for the Supreme Court of Canada appeal by Special Prosecutor on secret witness issue ... Bill Tieleman's blog has the complete text from the Supreme Court of Canada's web-site.
Don't miss the comment contributed on Bill's site by "PG" who was asking the hard questions: why didn't Berardino accept an earlier date, when there were openings in February 2009? Why did he delay the Basi Virk trial until April 2009? Bill's response is shown above ... and "PG" has this to say in reply:
And an update from "PG" to Bill Tieleman:
Read more and have your say at Bill's place. - BC Mary.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Interesting comments are coming in to The Legislature Raids, in response to the Berardino scheduling. G West asks serious new questions (below) and Bill Tieleman has given his reply at his place:
- G West said...
Mary,
Despite Bill's demurrer concerning the suggestion that Berardino has been dragging his heels I find the assertion less than convincing.
He asserts that it can't be the case (that Berardino is delaying) because the defence hasn't 'complained' about it.
Doesn't this seem overly naive to you? Surely, since one of the already noted possible grounds for dismissal is exactly that - excessive delay - why would defence counsel do or say 'anything' which tended to negate that ground?
If delay is the trump they're planning on playing and the Spec Prosecutor is 'delaying' why would they object? This is a criminal case at the bar and defence counsel are going to use whatever means are available to get their clients out of this thing - preferrably WITHOUT an actual trial."""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Comments:
<< Home
Almost as interesting as why Neal Hall had this information about two weeks ago - in an unattributed column that you posted here at the time Mary.
Clearly some folks have more of an inside track than others - and that makes me nervous.
This is supposed to be about a search for justice - rapid and fair...not just an opportunity for the press to play gotcha.
In my view it isn't just the justice system that's letting down the public here - it is the media as well.
Why is it, once again, that the working for profit press can find time and printer's ink to publish page after page of entirely forgettable tripe and they can't put one reporter (for the whole of the CanWest beast) on this story with a mandate to chase it to ground?
And why, when reporters do have 'real' and relevant information about the case and its characters, are they not releasing all of it to the public?
Who, exactly, do they think they are serving?
Clearly some folks have more of an inside track than others - and that makes me nervous.
This is supposed to be about a search for justice - rapid and fair...not just an opportunity for the press to play gotcha.
In my view it isn't just the justice system that's letting down the public here - it is the media as well.
Why is it, once again, that the working for profit press can find time and printer's ink to publish page after page of entirely forgettable tripe and they can't put one reporter (for the whole of the CanWest beast) on this story with a mandate to chase it to ground?
And why, when reporters do have 'real' and relevant information about the case and its characters, are they not releasing all of it to the public?
Who, exactly, do they think they are serving?
I'm sorry, but this just isn't convincing. If there are free dates on the SCC calendar and if time is of the essence, why should anyone accept the 'word' of defence counsel that an earlier hearing was not possible?
Instead of whispered conferences and phone calls from independent journalists would it be too much to ask for the Special Prosecutor to speak up?
After all, he's meant to be serving the public interest and not that of the British Columbia Executive Council.
Instead of whispered conferences and phone calls from independent journalists would it be too much to ask for the Special Prosecutor to speak up?
After all, he's meant to be serving the public interest and not that of the British Columbia Executive Council.
# posted by 
: December 18, 2008 at 7:32 p.m.
: December 18, 2008 at 7:32 p.m.
In fact, the rather pathetic hope that all is 'well' with the world here in BC at any 'official' level that is touched or has been influenced by the current Premier is depressing. From the administration of justice to the handling of land claims; from the awarding of contracts to the selling of a false image by the Bureau of Public Affairs; from the increasing and largely camouflaged provincial debt to the mismanagement and secrecy of the BC Ferry Corporation, the hand of the capo touches everything and runs everything in this province.
Why would he hesitate to use his influence to influence this case?
Vaughn Palmer, of all people, described his 'management' style very nicely in this column:
http://www.vancouversun.com/columnists/Campbell+means+staff+other+Liberals/1051183/story.html
From December 9. It's entitled:
By 'we,' Campbell means 'I' and 'my staff' -- not the other Liberals
He could as easily have redacted the last four words of the title and substituted 'not the people of British Columbia'.
Why would he hesitate to use his influence to influence this case?
Vaughn Palmer, of all people, described his 'management' style very nicely in this column:
http://www.vancouversun.com/columnists/Campbell+means+staff+other+Liberals/1051183/story.html
From December 9. It's entitled:
By 'we,' Campbell means 'I' and 'my staff' -- not the other Liberals
He could as easily have redacted the last four words of the title and substituted 'not the people of British Columbia'.
Mary,
Despite Bill's demurrer concerning the suggestion that Berardino has been dragging his heels I find the assertion less than convincing.
He asserts that it can't be the case (that Berardino is delaying) because the defence hasn't 'complained' about it.
Doesn't this seem overly naive to you? Surely, since one of the already noted possible grounds for dismissal is exactly that - excessive delay - why would defence counsel do or say 'anything' which tended to negate that ground?
If delay is the trump they're planning on playing and the Spec Prosecutor is 'delaying' why would they object? This is a criminal case at the bar and defence counsel are going to use whatever means are available to get their clients out of this thing - preferrably WITHOUT an actual trial.
Post a Comment
Despite Bill's demurrer concerning the suggestion that Berardino has been dragging his heels I find the assertion less than convincing.
He asserts that it can't be the case (that Berardino is delaying) because the defence hasn't 'complained' about it.
Doesn't this seem overly naive to you? Surely, since one of the already noted possible grounds for dismissal is exactly that - excessive delay - why would defence counsel do or say 'anything' which tended to negate that ground?
If delay is the trump they're planning on playing and the Spec Prosecutor is 'delaying' why would they object? This is a criminal case at the bar and defence counsel are going to use whatever means are available to get their clients out of this thing - preferrably WITHOUT an actual trial.
<< Home
Bill allow me to expand on my analysis regarding the setting of the SCC Appeal date.
On Nov 27, 2008 the SCC granted leave for the Appeal. By rule, the Appellant can file their factum within 30 days. The defence can then file their response within 30 days of that and then the Appellant can file a furthur response, if neccessary.
Within those timelines, the papers could be filed by early February, therefore allowing an Appeal to be heard shortly thereafter.
According to the SCC website, there are many dates available in February and March. Here is the link.
http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/information/cms-sgd/hear-aud-eng.asp
That is my rational[e] along with of course, a check for the facts with some lawyers who have argued successfully at the SCC.
I would wonder when Berardino will file his factum in light of the deadlines.
Regardless, I think that you and your readers would agree that the 5 year delay in this case assist the government rather than the defence. My bet is that Berardino doesn't not want to bite the hand that pay him the $300-400 per hour he bills every month for the last 5 years.
PG