Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Supreme Court of Canada to decide on whether to hear Basi-Virk Special Prosecutor appeal on secret witness Thursday

The Supreme Court of Canada will announce Thursday whether or not it will grant leave to appeal to Special Prosector Bill Berardino over the issue of secret witness testimony.

As noted here previously, if leave to appeal is granted the Supreme Court of Canada will set a one-day hearing in Ottawa at some future point, hear arguments from all parties and then deliberate on a decision.

If the appeal is heard, the start of the BC Legislature Raid trial - hearing corruption-related charges against former BC Liberal government aides David Basi, Bob Virk and Aneal Basi - could be delayed by up to a year.

Conversely, Berardino has previously hinted that the trial might not proceed if he cannot call a secret witness to testify. Specifically, Berardino said he had a duty to uphold informer privilege but would not elaborate outside court.

BC Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Bennett's original ruling - that defence lawyers could be present to hear arguments about why testimony of a witness must remain secret from all but the Special Prosecutor and the judge - was later upheld in a 2-1 split decision by the BC Court of Appeal.

Pre-trial hearings at BC Supreme Court continue today.

Here is the Supreme Court of Canada announcement:


SUPREME COURT OF CANADA ‑‑ JUDGMENTS TO BE RENDERED IN LEAVE APPLICATIONS

OTTAWA, 2008-11-24.

THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA ANNOUNCED TODAY THAT JUDGMENT IN THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WILL BE DELIVERED AT 9:45 A.M. EST ON THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2008. THIS LIST IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE.

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.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Odds makers are giving the edge to the leave for Bill Berardino to appeal being granted. After all, the Special Prosecutor wants to delay the case from starting beyond the 2009 election.

If the leave is not granted, look for Bill Berardino to back track and come up with another tactic that will continue to delay this case.

Either way, this case will not begin before the election of 2009.

Mark my word.

Gary E said...

Berardino has already found another delay for this case. A Second Prosecutor has been brought in with the blessing of Justice Bennett. Someone who claims to have no knowledge in the case but is working on behalf of the RCMP.

So it won't really matter if the SCC comes down on the side of the Prosecutor or not. Prosecutor #2 will ask for another 4 years to review documents he may or may not deem privileged.

The Judicial system in this Province is a sham. In fact in this country it's a joke. And the governments are using taxpayer money to keep from getting into a political scandal. Unlimited resources.

Anonymous said...

To me, this trial appears to mirror what is happening in the justice system in Canada as to what has happened in the economic system. Both are in a state of decline because of the self interests of governments. Both federally (e.g. Mulroony's cash payments investigation and provincially, this trial) governments have interfered with the justice system. It's time for these governments to go.