Wednesday, November 17, 2010
"If the Basi, Virk, Basi trial does go ahead as planned, there will be more bombshells than on a bad day in Iraq." Is this why the trial was stopped?
.
BC Mary comment: Don't be fooled by the lead-in to this strange but choice bit of information. Go HERE
http://bootzipper.co.tv/clinton-county-ny-siezed-property-auctions
(sorry about the sex advertising) and scroll down, down, down to find more about the 32-page application for disclosure lodged by the Defence prior to the BC Rail Political Corruption trial ...
MORE » Vancouver, British Columbia :: Online Business Directory
Alternatively, presiding Justice Elizabeth Bennett may grant some or all of the defence's long list of requests for disclosure of evidence against their clients, evidence that could prove very damaging to the provincial government and the federal and provincial Liberal parties.
Fair trial jeopardized?
The allegations in the 32-page application filed by the defence prior to the trial -- to which the Crown will file a reply on March 14 -- come more than three years after the Dec. 28, 2003 police raid on the B.C. legislature. The allegations, it should be reminded, have not been proven in court.
At the heart of the defence case is a serious contention -- that the police and Crown have so screwed up their prosecution of the accused that a fair trial is impossible.
The defence will file a Charter of Rights challenge to the case on March 21 and that application, plus other defence requests, could well have the effect of delaying the April 2 trial start date -- if they don't result in the complete cancellation of the trial itself.
If the trial goes forward, expect the $1 billion B.C. Rail privatization to be placed under more scrutiny than ever before, because it is central to everything about this case.
And notwithstanding former B.C. Liberal finance minister Gary Collins's claim in March 2004 thatthe there was no concern by investigators about the B.C. Rail sale to CN Rail, in fact the police were literally all over it.
Just how much concern there was can be seen in the defence application, which details a major police surveillance operation focused on Collins himself when he dined with senior executives of OmniTRAX at Vancouver's posh Villa del Lupo restaurant on Dec. 12, 2003.
CN Rail had just been announced as the successful bidder for B.C. Rail on Nov. 25, and according to the defence document, the RCMP learned through intercepted communications that Collins was meeting with OmniTRAX executives Pat Broe and Dwight Johnson.
'Extensive video surveillance'
"The surveillance included undercover operatives both inside and outside the restaurant, and extensive video surveillance and tracking of the parties," the defence states.
It claims that on Nov. 17, 2003, the RCMP had "learned through a series of intercepted communications that Mr. Basi advised OmniTRAX that Minister Collins had authorized a consolation prize for OmniTRAX in exchange for them staying in the bidding process."
The defence will argue that Basi and Virk were merely following ministerial orders from Collins, not acting in their own benefit by leaking confidential government information to a lobby firm representing OmniTRAX.
The defence applications spells this out clearly: "The defence takes the position that at no time did Mr. Basi or Mr. Virk act in a fraudulent, deceitful or criminal manner, but rather acted at all times under the direction of their superiors in the highly political circumstances of their offices."
'Fraught with political controversy'
The defence also spells out just what kind of importance the B.C. Rail privatization had to the B.C. Liberal government.
CP Rail had already dropped out of the bidding, saying privately to government that it believed CN Rail was the predetermined winner of the bidding. A letter to that effect stated that a "clear breach" of fairness had occurred when other bidders obtained confidential government information about B.C. Rail.
"It was clearly in the provincial government's political interest to have an auction with more than one bidder," the defence application states. It later continues that:
"The decision by the Liberal government to sell B.C. Rail was fraught with political controversy, largely because it was in direct contravention of a previous election promise not to sell B.C. Rail. The Liberal government had recently suffered serious losses of political capital due to their decisions surrounding other major projects, including the Coquihalla Highway project."
"The B.C. Rail bidding process therefore had to be handled with the utmost political care, given this sensitive political climate," it concludes.
Who will testify?
"Sensitive" is a good word to describe much of the evidence slated to be heard in this trial.
For example, will former finance minister Gary Collins be called to testify against his own former ministerial assistant David Basi?
Entirely possible and totally impossible for the defence to actually know, because they also allege that: "From the outset of this case, defence counsel has repeatedly sought a list of witness the Crown intends to call at the trial of this matter." That list is among the requests the defence is asking Justice Bennett to order the Crown to provide.
The defence is also frustrated that it has limited information about "an interview with a member of the public who provided the RCMP with his opinion of two witnesses on the condition of anonymity."
"The special prosecutor and RCMP have refused to provide this statement, advising that its disclosure would breach the third party rights of this individual and the two witnesses," the defence states.
What is alleged
Again, a reminder is in order that these are only allegations not proven in court. Among the more stunning allegations made by the defence are these:
That the defence is seeking correspondence between the RCMP, its legal advisors, the government of B.C. and B.C. Rail about "whether the sale of the freight division ought to have been rescinded and whether any compensation should be provided to any proponent, including the successful proponent";
That the defence also seeks from the same parties "any suggestion that CN paid too much or too little for the freight division";
That Basi and Virk worked on Gary Collins's orders to keep U.S. firm OmniTRAX from dropping out of the bidding for B.C. Rail, by indicating it would be given the "consolation prize" of the B.C. Rail Roberts Bank spur line, worth an estimated $70 to $100 million, for staying in the overall B.C. Rail bid process won by CN to maintain its credibility;
That "the indictment before the court deals directly with the connection of the accused and certain witnesses to the federal Liberal party";
That the "RCMP have extensively investigated various political and quasi-political activities of Mr. Basi in relation to provincial politics" and that "Messrs. Basi and Virk were significant political operatives for the provincial Liberal party";
That B.C. Liberal party Executive Director Kelly Reichert's brother-in-law Kevin Debruyckere was the RCMP sergeant in charge of the investigation;
That in 2004 there had been a leak of information regarding key Crown witness Erik Bornmann, a provincial lobbyist, and that it "pertained to Mr. Reichert knowing that Mr. Bornmann had been granted immunity from prosecution in exchange for the provision of information against Messrs. Basi and Virk";
That "Bornmann advised the RCMP that Mr. Reichert had advised Mr. Bornmann's partner, Mr. [Jamie] Elmhirst, of same."
That because Special Prosecutor Bill Berardino had not notified the provincial government that Bornmann had made statements "that he had bribed Mr. Basi," Bornmann continued in the lobby business and "received a benefit from this conduct of the special prosecutor";
That Bornmann's business partner at Pilothouse Public Affairs, former Province columnist Brian Kieran, also continued to lobby the provincial government on behalf of clients after making his statements to the RCMP in 2004 he "also made an allegation of a payment to Mr. Basi that would have been unlawful";
That because the special prosecutor's "failing to notify the provincial government of this conduct" it left "Mr. Kieran free to continue lobbying the provincial government." That resulted in "a substantial benefit to Mr. Kieran." The defence notes that Kieran announced his retirement in March 2006 when the "court ordered the release of search warrant information";
That the RCMP knew a public claim in April 2004 by Bornmann that he "had been given the 'all clear' by the special prosecutor" was false and that "the special prosecutor has advised defence counsel that Mr. Bornmann continues to this day to have the threat of criminal charges brought against him until after he testifies";
That the RCMP seized federal Liberal Party donor lists in a March 2005 visit to the Liberal Party of Canada B.C. offices -- a fact that caused senior federal Conservative John Reynolds to ask why the RCMP would want them;
That Erik Bornmann made allegations about Bruce Clark, brother of former B.C. Liberal deputy premier Christy Clark and brother-in-law of Mark Marissen, federal Liberal leader Stéphane Dion's campaign manager. According to the defence, Bruce Clark is "another potential Crown witness" and "Mr. Clark bribed Mr. Basi." The defence says it has not received "the entirety of Mr. Bornmann's statements against Mr. Clark although they relate directly to this investigation. [Clark told The Globe and Mail newspaper that: "The police investigated the allegations. They found nothing because the allegations were completely false."]
In a nutshell, a bombshell
In a nutshell, the defence has alleged that there was an internal political decision by the B.C. Liberal government to "fix" a $1 billion dollar deal and pay off the losing firm with another deal worth up to $100 million. And it seeks internal RCMP and government information on whether the B.C. Rail deal should have been rescinded.
It also alleges that a key RCMP investigator was related by marriage to the top staff person of the B.C. Liberal Party and that confidential information about the immunity granted to the Crown's key witness was leaked to that staff person.
The defence also alleges the special prosecutor gave beneficial treatment to two provincial lobbyists who are to be Crown witnesses, so they could continue their lucrative business. And that one of those witnesses still faces potential criminal charges.
More shockers?
Believe it or not, this lengthy compendium does not even cover all of the allegations made in the defence disclosure application -- not even close. I have deliberately left out many of the allegations that have been previously reported in The Tyee and other media outlets for reason of space and complexity.
Suffice it to say that if the Basi, Virk, Basi trial does go ahead as planned, there will be more bombshells than on a bad day in Iraq.
BC Mary comment: Rumours say that all these documents ... and more ... will be seized and destroyed unless British Columbians can make the forceful demand that they be saved and protected for the future.
BC Mary comment: Don't be fooled by the lead-in to this strange but choice bit of information. Go HERE
http://bootzipper.co.tv/clinton-county-ny-siezed-property-auctions
(sorry about the sex advertising) and scroll down, down, down to find more about the 32-page application for disclosure lodged by the Defence prior to the BC Rail Political Corruption trial ...
MORE » Vancouver, British Columbia :: Online Business Directory
Alternatively, presiding Justice Elizabeth Bennett may grant some or all of the defence's long list of requests for disclosure of evidence against their clients, evidence that could prove very damaging to the provincial government and the federal and provincial Liberal parties.
Fair trial jeopardized?
The allegations in the 32-page application filed by the defence prior to the trial -- to which the Crown will file a reply on March 14 -- come more than three years after the Dec. 28, 2003 police raid on the B.C. legislature. The allegations, it should be reminded, have not been proven in court.
At the heart of the defence case is a serious contention -- that the police and Crown have so screwed up their prosecution of the accused that a fair trial is impossible.
The defence will file a Charter of Rights challenge to the case on March 21 and that application, plus other defence requests, could well have the effect of delaying the April 2 trial start date -- if they don't result in the complete cancellation of the trial itself.
If the trial goes forward, expect the $1 billion B.C. Rail privatization to be placed under more scrutiny than ever before, because it is central to everything about this case.
And notwithstanding former B.C. Liberal finance minister Gary Collins's claim in March 2004 that
Just how much concern there was can be seen in the defence application, which details a major police surveillance operation focused on Collins himself when he dined with senior executives of OmniTRAX at Vancouver's posh Villa del Lupo restaurant on Dec. 12, 2003.
CN Rail had just been announced as the successful bidder for B.C. Rail on Nov. 25, and according to the defence document, the RCMP learned through intercepted communications that Collins was meeting with OmniTRAX executives Pat Broe and Dwight Johnson.
'Extensive video surveillance'
"The surveillance included undercover operatives both inside and outside the restaurant, and extensive video surveillance and tracking of the parties," the defence states.
It claims that on Nov. 17, 2003, the RCMP had "learned through a series of intercepted communications that Mr. Basi advised OmniTRAX that Minister Collins had authorized a consolation prize for OmniTRAX in exchange for them staying in the bidding process."
The defence will argue that Basi and Virk were merely following ministerial orders from Collins, not acting in their own benefit by leaking confidential government information to a lobby firm representing OmniTRAX.
The defence applications spells this out clearly: "The defence takes the position that at no time did Mr. Basi or Mr. Virk act in a fraudulent, deceitful or criminal manner, but rather acted at all times under the direction of their superiors in the highly political circumstances of their offices."
'Fraught with political controversy'
The defence also spells out just what kind of importance the B.C. Rail privatization had to the B.C. Liberal government.
CP Rail had already dropped out of the bidding, saying privately to government that it believed CN Rail was the predetermined winner of the bidding. A letter to that effect stated that a "clear breach" of fairness had occurred when other bidders obtained confidential government information about B.C. Rail.
"It was clearly in the provincial government's political interest to have an auction with more than one bidder," the defence application states. It later continues that:
"The decision by the Liberal government to sell B.C. Rail was fraught with political controversy, largely because it was in direct contravention of a previous election promise not to sell B.C. Rail. The Liberal government had recently suffered serious losses of political capital due to their decisions surrounding other major projects, including the Coquihalla Highway project."
"The B.C. Rail bidding process therefore had to be handled with the utmost political care, given this sensitive political climate," it concludes.
Who will testify?
"Sensitive" is a good word to describe much of the evidence slated to be heard in this trial.
For example, will former finance minister Gary Collins be called to testify against his own former ministerial assistant David Basi?
Entirely possible and totally impossible for the defence to actually know, because they also allege that: "From the outset of this case, defence counsel has repeatedly sought a list of witness the Crown intends to call at the trial of this matter." That list is among the requests the defence is asking Justice Bennett to order the Crown to provide.
The defence is also frustrated that it has limited information about "an interview with a member of the public who provided the RCMP with his opinion of two witnesses on the condition of anonymity."
"The special prosecutor and RCMP have refused to provide this statement, advising that its disclosure would breach the third party rights of this individual and the two witnesses," the defence states.
What is alleged
Again, a reminder is in order that these are only allegations not proven in court. Among the more stunning allegations made by the defence are these:
That the defence is seeking correspondence between the RCMP, its legal advisors, the government of B.C. and B.C. Rail about "whether the sale of the freight division ought to have been rescinded and whether any compensation should be provided to any proponent, including the successful proponent";
That the defence also seeks from the same parties "any suggestion that CN paid too much or too little for the freight division";
That Basi and Virk worked on Gary Collins's orders to keep U.S. firm OmniTRAX from dropping out of the bidding for B.C. Rail, by indicating it would be given the "consolation prize" of the B.C. Rail Roberts Bank spur line, worth an estimated $70 to $100 million, for staying in the overall B.C. Rail bid process won by CN to maintain its credibility;
That "the indictment before the court deals directly with the connection of the accused and certain witnesses to the federal Liberal party";
That the "RCMP have extensively investigated various political and quasi-political activities of Mr. Basi in relation to provincial politics" and that "Messrs. Basi and Virk were significant political operatives for the provincial Liberal party";
That B.C. Liberal party Executive Director Kelly Reichert's brother-in-law Kevin Debruyckere was the RCMP sergeant in charge of the investigation;
That in 2004 there had been a leak of information regarding key Crown witness Erik Bornmann, a provincial lobbyist, and that it "pertained to Mr. Reichert knowing that Mr. Bornmann had been granted immunity from prosecution in exchange for the provision of information against Messrs. Basi and Virk";
That "Bornmann advised the RCMP that Mr. Reichert had advised Mr. Bornmann's partner, Mr. [Jamie] Elmhirst, of same."
That because Special Prosecutor Bill Berardino had not notified the provincial government that Bornmann had made statements "that he had bribed Mr. Basi," Bornmann continued in the lobby business and "received a benefit from this conduct of the special prosecutor";
That Bornmann's business partner at Pilothouse Public Affairs, former Province columnist Brian Kieran, also continued to lobby the provincial government on behalf of clients after making his statements to the RCMP in 2004 he "also made an allegation of a payment to Mr. Basi that would have been unlawful";
That because the special prosecutor's "failing to notify the provincial government of this conduct" it left "Mr. Kieran free to continue lobbying the provincial government." That resulted in "a substantial benefit to Mr. Kieran." The defence notes that Kieran announced his retirement in March 2006 when the "court ordered the release of search warrant information";
That the RCMP knew a public claim in April 2004 by Bornmann that he "had been given the 'all clear' by the special prosecutor" was false and that "the special prosecutor has advised defence counsel that Mr. Bornmann continues to this day to have the threat of criminal charges brought against him until after he testifies";
That the RCMP seized federal Liberal Party donor lists in a March 2005 visit to the Liberal Party of Canada B.C. offices -- a fact that caused senior federal Conservative John Reynolds to ask why the RCMP would want them;
That Erik Bornmann made allegations about Bruce Clark, brother of former B.C. Liberal deputy premier Christy Clark and brother-in-law of Mark Marissen, federal Liberal leader Stéphane Dion's campaign manager. According to the defence, Bruce Clark is "another potential Crown witness" and "Mr. Clark bribed Mr. Basi." The defence says it has not received "the entirety of Mr. Bornmann's statements against Mr. Clark although they relate directly to this investigation. [Clark told The Globe and Mail newspaper that: "The police investigated the allegations. They found nothing because the allegations were completely false."]
In a nutshell, a bombshell
In a nutshell, the defence has alleged that there was an internal political decision by the B.C. Liberal government to "fix" a $1 billion dollar deal and pay off the losing firm with another deal worth up to $100 million. And it seeks internal RCMP and government information on whether the B.C. Rail deal should have been rescinded.
It also alleges that a key RCMP investigator was related by marriage to the top staff person of the B.C. Liberal Party and that confidential information about the immunity granted to the Crown's key witness was leaked to that staff person.
The defence also alleges the special prosecutor gave beneficial treatment to two provincial lobbyists who are to be Crown witnesses, so they could continue their lucrative business. And that one of those witnesses still faces potential criminal charges.
More shockers?
Believe it or not, this lengthy compendium does not even cover all of the allegations made in the defence disclosure application -- not even close. I have deliberately left out many of the allegations that have been previously reported in The Tyee and other media outlets for reason of space and complexity.
Suffice it to say that if the Basi, Virk, Basi trial does go ahead as planned, there will be more bombshells than on a bad day in Iraq.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BC Mary comment: Rumours say that all these documents ... and more ... will be seized and destroyed unless British Columbians can make the forceful demand that they be saved and protected for the future.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Comments:
<< Home
The destruction of these documents seems almost incomprehensible, has it ever happened before in a criminal case in Canada ?
There has been reference on this website to a woman named Lara and concerns that something inappropriate has occurred as it relates to her position, public funding, etc.. Would it not be simple for someone to file a complaint with the legislature conflict commissioner so that it could be investigated, that seems to make sense if there is a concern or not. Just asking.
There has been reference on this website to a woman named Lara and concerns that something inappropriate has occurred as it relates to her position, public funding, etc.. Would it not be simple for someone to file a complaint with the legislature conflict commissioner so that it could be investigated, that seems to make sense if there is a concern or not. Just asking.
# posted by 
: November 17, 2010 at 9:46 a.m.
: November 17, 2010 at 9:46 a.m.
Remember back in June
From Your History here Mary
"In Another week without evidence given at Basi-Virk trial - jury and witness Martyn Brown dismissed until Monday June 28 at 11:15 a.m., Bill T sez:
The long-delayed Basi-Virk/BC Legislature Raid case has once again gone a week without any evidence presented to the jury.
Associate Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie dismissed both the jury and witness Martyn Brown, Premier Gordon Campbell's Chief of Staff, until Monday June 28 at 11:15 a.m. due to the need to hear legal arguments that cannot be reported because of a publication ban."
-------
june 28 Robin wrote
Bolton began by asking the question that lead to the objection from Mr. Berardino. Namely, did Martyn know about the cosy relationship between Kelly Reichert of the BC Liberal Party and the lead investigator from the RCMP, Kevin Debruyckere. Martyn responded that he learned this through the media. Bolton asked despite working closely with Kelly Reichert during each of the last 3 campaigns if he had any discussions with Reichert about his brother in law, RCMP officer Debruyckere. Mr. Brown responded, "he can't recall."
--
I EM sayWe always said that after the Trial We will see these reasons.(sometimes the Court can withhold posting even after)
Here is one of theJudges decisions regarding the legal wrangling about the question
above.
J McKenzie
These are the reasons for the rulings I gave in court on June 29, 2010. The Crown objects to a question Mr. Bolton asked of the witness Martyn Brown, the Premier’s Chief of Staff. That question was: “Did you know that the leader of the B.C. Liberal Party, Kelly Reichert, is the brother-in-law of Superintendent DeBruykere?
[2] Two issues arise:
a) Is this question relevant to an issue before the Court?; and
b) If the question is relevant, does the “Proposal Made by the Accused Persons and Their Counsel Regarding the Trial of this Matter” (the “proposal”) nevertheless preclude Mr. Bolton from asking the question?
.........
5] In explaining the relevance of the proposed line of questioning, defence counsel identified a number of instances of conduct on the part of the RCMP which they say give rise to reasonable inferences of bias in favour of the B.C. Liberal Party and which give them a good faith basis to ask the questions. The first relates to Mr. Reichert. Their written submissions describe it as follows:
1. On May 5, 2004, Erik Bornman met with Sgt. Finner to continue his interview from the previous week.
2. Mr. Bornman asked Sgt. Finner if there was a police investigator named “Reichert”. He explained that Jamie Elmhirst had told him that Dave Basi said that Reichert had lunch with Mr. Virk and Reichert told Mr. Virk that Bornman had “made a deal” with the RCMP.
...........
[15] The line of questioning is also relevant to defence counsels’ exploration of investigational deficiencies or bias. Depending on the jury’s assessment, the evidence may unfold to ultimately permit an inference that the RCMP were biased against the accused in their investigation, and therefore contribute to a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused.
[16] Accordingly, I conclude that the question Mr. Bolton seeks to ask Mr. Brown is potentially relevant to issues at trial. I also conclude that its probative value outweighs any prejudicial effect of its admission.
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/10/09/2010BCSC0955.htm
(praying this goes through, I have had problems)
From Your History here Mary
"In Another week without evidence given at Basi-Virk trial - jury and witness Martyn Brown dismissed until Monday June 28 at 11:15 a.m., Bill T sez:
The long-delayed Basi-Virk/BC Legislature Raid case has once again gone a week without any evidence presented to the jury.
Associate Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie dismissed both the jury and witness Martyn Brown, Premier Gordon Campbell's Chief of Staff, until Monday June 28 at 11:15 a.m. due to the need to hear legal arguments that cannot be reported because of a publication ban."
-------
june 28 Robin wrote
Bolton began by asking the question that lead to the objection from Mr. Berardino. Namely, did Martyn know about the cosy relationship between Kelly Reichert of the BC Liberal Party and the lead investigator from the RCMP, Kevin Debruyckere. Martyn responded that he learned this through the media. Bolton asked despite working closely with Kelly Reichert during each of the last 3 campaigns if he had any discussions with Reichert about his brother in law, RCMP officer Debruyckere. Mr. Brown responded, "he can't recall."
--
I EM sayWe always said that after the Trial We will see these reasons.(sometimes the Court can withhold posting even after)
Here is one of theJudges decisions regarding the legal wrangling about the question
above.
J McKenzie
These are the reasons for the rulings I gave in court on June 29, 2010. The Crown objects to a question Mr. Bolton asked of the witness Martyn Brown, the Premier’s Chief of Staff. That question was: “Did you know that the leader of the B.C. Liberal Party, Kelly Reichert, is the brother-in-law of Superintendent DeBruykere?
[2] Two issues arise:
a) Is this question relevant to an issue before the Court?; and
b) If the question is relevant, does the “Proposal Made by the Accused Persons and Their Counsel Regarding the Trial of this Matter” (the “proposal”) nevertheless preclude Mr. Bolton from asking the question?
.........
5] In explaining the relevance of the proposed line of questioning, defence counsel identified a number of instances of conduct on the part of the RCMP which they say give rise to reasonable inferences of bias in favour of the B.C. Liberal Party and which give them a good faith basis to ask the questions. The first relates to Mr. Reichert. Their written submissions describe it as follows:
1. On May 5, 2004, Erik Bornman met with Sgt. Finner to continue his interview from the previous week.
2. Mr. Bornman asked Sgt. Finner if there was a police investigator named “Reichert”. He explained that Jamie Elmhirst had told him that Dave Basi said that Reichert had lunch with Mr. Virk and Reichert told Mr. Virk that Bornman had “made a deal” with the RCMP.
...........
[15] The line of questioning is also relevant to defence counsels’ exploration of investigational deficiencies or bias. Depending on the jury’s assessment, the evidence may unfold to ultimately permit an inference that the RCMP were biased against the accused in their investigation, and therefore contribute to a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused.
[16] Accordingly, I conclude that the question Mr. Bolton seeks to ask Mr. Brown is potentially relevant to issues at trial. I also conclude that its probative value outweighs any prejudicial effect of its admission.
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/10/09/2010BCSC0955.htm
(praying this goes through, I have had problems)
How enlightening reading all the decisions that have been banned, and Applications that We could not know about.
I like this one.
The Crown provided examples in its written argument of how these documents link up to other evidence. Among these examples are the following:
a) Mr. Bornmann sent an e-mail to Mr. Kieran on September 2, 2002, in which he referred to “some new intel from Dave and Bobby”, and attached a briefing note that contained a description of this “intel”, including private communications between the Premier, the Minister of Transportation, the Minister of Finance and the Premier’s Chief of Staff about the future of BC Rail. The Crown says this document is direct evidence of Mr. Virk and Mr. Basi passing confidential information to Pilothouse.
b) On November 10, 2003, Mr. Elmhirst sent an e-mail to Mr. Kieran advising him that he had had a conversation with “our friend” about tax pools. (Tax pools were credits held by BC Rail that could potentially be transferred to the successful bidder for BC Rail. The ability of tax pools to be transferred was a confidential tax issue that arose in the course of the BC Rail bidding process.) The Crown will tender into evidence a telephone conversation between Mr. Basi and Mr. Elmhirst on November 10, 2003 in which they discuss the tax pools. It will also tender a telephone conversation between Mr. Basi and Mr. Virk on November 8, 2003 in which Mr. Virk reports to Mr. Basi about Martyn Brown’s views regarding the tax pools and whether Cabinet was aware of that issue. Thus, submits the Crown, the November 10, 2003 e-mail is inextricably linked to wiretap evidence which the parties have agreed is properly admitted into evidence.
c) On July 7, 2003, Pilothouse created a briefing note setting out the confidential bid numbers of three bidders seeking to acquire the operating rights of BC Rail. The Crown submits that this briefing note demonstrates that Pilothouse was in possession of some of the most sensitive and confidential information at issue in the entire BC Rail bidding process.
-----
Reading these now, I am reminded about defense app for abuse of Process back in November 2009,The defense were still getting documents in May, that they said changed how they would be handling the trial, and wanted a two week adjournment. Could the documents the defense got prove more about the Crown Prosecotors actions?
Nov Decision J Mc said
"[52] For the foregoing reasons, I conclude it is not appropriate to hear the abuse of process application at this time. In reaching this conclusion, I have not overlooked the defence submission that the Crown misconduct has already occurred such that the abuse of process is complete. Nevertheless, I exercise my discretion in all the circumstances to have the benefit of a full factual foundation upon which to determine the effect of the alleged Crown misconduct on the trial. I prefer to make that determination with the benefit of all the Crown’s evidence, including direct and cross-examination of Mr. Bornmann, and evidence that, according to the Crown, would support his testimony. Should I find then that the Crown’s conduct in the manner in which it entered into the immunity agreement with Mr. Bornmann amounts to an abuse of process, or to a lesser breach of s. 7 of the Charter, I will fashion an appropriate remedy.
Disposition
[53] I decline to hear the abuse of process application before trial. The defence has leave to bring the application at the close of the Crown’s case.
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/10/15/2010BCSC1599.htm
I like this one.
The Crown provided examples in its written argument of how these documents link up to other evidence. Among these examples are the following:
a) Mr. Bornmann sent an e-mail to Mr. Kieran on September 2, 2002, in which he referred to “some new intel from Dave and Bobby”, and attached a briefing note that contained a description of this “intel”, including private communications between the Premier, the Minister of Transportation, the Minister of Finance and the Premier’s Chief of Staff about the future of BC Rail. The Crown says this document is direct evidence of Mr. Virk and Mr. Basi passing confidential information to Pilothouse.
b) On November 10, 2003, Mr. Elmhirst sent an e-mail to Mr. Kieran advising him that he had had a conversation with “our friend” about tax pools. (Tax pools were credits held by BC Rail that could potentially be transferred to the successful bidder for BC Rail. The ability of tax pools to be transferred was a confidential tax issue that arose in the course of the BC Rail bidding process.) The Crown will tender into evidence a telephone conversation between Mr. Basi and Mr. Elmhirst on November 10, 2003 in which they discuss the tax pools. It will also tender a telephone conversation between Mr. Basi and Mr. Virk on November 8, 2003 in which Mr. Virk reports to Mr. Basi about Martyn Brown’s views regarding the tax pools and whether Cabinet was aware of that issue. Thus, submits the Crown, the November 10, 2003 e-mail is inextricably linked to wiretap evidence which the parties have agreed is properly admitted into evidence.
c) On July 7, 2003, Pilothouse created a briefing note setting out the confidential bid numbers of three bidders seeking to acquire the operating rights of BC Rail. The Crown submits that this briefing note demonstrates that Pilothouse was in possession of some of the most sensitive and confidential information at issue in the entire BC Rail bidding process.
-----
Reading these now, I am reminded about defense app for abuse of Process back in November 2009,The defense were still getting documents in May, that they said changed how they would be handling the trial, and wanted a two week adjournment. Could the documents the defense got prove more about the Crown Prosecotors actions?
Nov Decision J Mc said
"[52] For the foregoing reasons, I conclude it is not appropriate to hear the abuse of process application at this time. In reaching this conclusion, I have not overlooked the defence submission that the Crown misconduct has already occurred such that the abuse of process is complete. Nevertheless, I exercise my discretion in all the circumstances to have the benefit of a full factual foundation upon which to determine the effect of the alleged Crown misconduct on the trial. I prefer to make that determination with the benefit of all the Crown’s evidence, including direct and cross-examination of Mr. Bornmann, and evidence that, according to the Crown, would support his testimony. Should I find then that the Crown’s conduct in the manner in which it entered into the immunity agreement with Mr. Bornmann amounts to an abuse of process, or to a lesser breach of s. 7 of the Charter, I will fashion an appropriate remedy.
Disposition
[53] I decline to hear the abuse of process application before trial. The defence has leave to bring the application at the close of the Crown’s case.
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/10/15/2010BCSC1599.htm
This is great work on your part E.M
For those who want to see other documents, held by the Courts, the Supreme Court of British Columbia, this is what you need to search for:
r. v. basi
in the box labeled "Case Name"
Tick off the "Supreme Court" and it will keep you from searching Court of Appeal
And this is where to go:
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/search_judgments.aspx#SearchTitle
Post a Comment
For those who want to see other documents, held by the Courts, the Supreme Court of British Columbia, this is what you need to search for:
r. v. basi
in the box labeled "Case Name"
Tick off the "Supreme Court" and it will keep you from searching Court of Appeal
And this is where to go:
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/search_judgments.aspx#SearchTitle
<< Home
