Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Bill Tieleman - March 31/09 hearing
Justice Bennett rules more than 80 BC Rail documents "relevant" to defence in BC Legislature Raid case
With an introduction to the PATH process ... and more.
Quote:
David Basi's lawyer Michael Bolton said the documents will demonstrate that a "political agenda" existed prior to the sale of BC Rail and will shed light on the lead up to the privatization and the aftermath.
Read Bill's full column HERE. Highly recommended, as in: did the other shoe just drop?? - BC Mary.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
BC Rail Deal Haunts Libs
Bill Tieleman
24 HOURS - March 31, 2009
There’s a sinister way of looking at this – that the government was playing politics with this deal the whole time.
- Defence lawyer Kevin McCullough on the B.C. Rail sale
Let’s make one thing clear – the B.C. Legislature raid case, the $1 billion privatization of B.C. Rail in 2003, the corruption charges against three former B.C. Liberal government aides – those are now secondary.
A far more important issue is at stake – the integrity of the premier of British Columbia, Gordon Campbell.
For those who have either failed to cover or follow the charges against David Basi, Bob Virk or Aneal Basi, saying it’s too complicated, too long ago, too trivial or just so what – none of that matters any more.
Campbell must answer questions about his personal role and his government’s actions in selling B.C. Rail to CN Rail for $1 billion in a purportedly open bidding process. {Snip} ...
Did Campbell know who Kinsella was representing when he called the premier’s Chief of Staff Martyn Brown on May 19, 2004 to try and save the billion dollar deal with CN from collapsing? Was it B.C. Rail or CN or both?
Not only is the Campbell’s excuse that he can’t comment on a matter “before the courts” convenient – it’s fundamentally wrong. Campbell has commented before when it suited his purposes.
This time it’s more important – it’s not the Basi-Virk case that is in jeopardy – it’s Gordon Campbell’s personal integrity.
Full column HERE. Highly recommended. - BC Mary.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
____
For those even remotely interested, some really important (well, kinda/sorta) news (of this particular fine 1st of April day) up at my place.
RossK
(The motions to expedite the application for leave to appeal and to seal the responses by the respondents Udhe Singh (Dave) Basi and Bobby Singh Virk are granted. The application for leave to appeal and the applications for leave to cross-appeal are granted. / Les requêtes visant à accélérer la procédure de demande d’autorisation d’appel et pour sceller les réponses des intimés Udhe Singh (Dave) Basi et Bobby Singh Virk sont accordées. La demande d’autorisation d’appel et les demandes d’autorisation d’appel incident sont accordées.)
Second Search results:
32719 Her Majesty the Queen v. Bobby Singh Virk, Udhe Singh (Dave) Basi and Aneal Basi
(B.C.) (Criminal) (By Leave)
Criminal law - Trial - Procedure - Whether counsel for the accused may be present at in camera hearing to determine whether informer privilege applies to protect material from disclosure ‑ Jurisdiction of Court of Appeal pursuant to s. 37 of Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑5 - Whether it is a breach of the court’s duty to protect informer privilege to permit defence counsel to learn the identity of an informant or information that might identify an informant on undertakings not to disclose this information - Whether the first stage of the procedure in Named Person v. Vancouver Sun, 2007 SCC 43, applies such that accused and their counsel are not entitled to attend a hearing to determine a claim of informer privilege where the evidence may or will identify the informer - Whether s. 37 of the Canada Evidence Act provides the court with discretion to override the substantive rule of law barring disclosure of an informant’s identity - Whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to hear the appeal in this matter.
The Respondents are charged with corruption, fraud and breach of trust resulting from alleged misconduct while civil servants. In pre‑trial proceedings, they sought disclosure of certain documents and portions of documents. The Crown requested an in camera, ex parte hearing to determine whether the documents are protected by informant’s privilege. The Crown seeks to exclude defence counsel from the hearing.
December 6, 2007
Supreme Court of British Columbia
(Bennett J.) SNIP
Third ..... oh what the heck here's the results of all of them (8) in total.
<< Home
