Can the RCMP be trusted?

The RCMP, based on recent events, have lost the trust of many Canadians. Can they trusted to do the right thing with Basi-Virk or will they just prove to be a political police force, like the Gestapo or Stassi, doing the bidding of politicians?

If the trail ends in a mistrial, we will know the answer and the credibility of the RCMP will be lost forever.

Let there be light

This trial--and Bill Tieleman's reporting-- has shone a bright light into the shadows of the dark, secretive Campbell administration. This is journalism at its best. Informing the public of facts that we need to know in order to make better decisions about our government. The deafening silence from Canwest Global and the rest of Canada's media monopoly has reached a crescendo. Thanks so much to David Beers and the Tyee for the courage to assume the mantle of the Fourth Estate. Well done! This is democracy working at it should.

If the missing Special Prosecutor can't (won't) produce ...

Jeffrey J. has said it clearly: immense thanks must go to Bill Tieleman and to The Tyee for paying attention to this crucial issue of B.C. Rail.

I'm on the fence a while longer, until we hear from the Prosecution team on Thursday. If they say they can't (won't) cough up what the defence needs, and if this forces the judge to declare a mistrial -- well, I think British Columbia will know just how deep is the political/criminal doo-doo.

Does anybody think that we can look away yet ... and that Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett can make the whole problem disappear without bringing this issue to trial?

My gosh, nobody's even told us where the Special Prosecutor is? Or why he never shows up any more. Is he still on our payroll? If so, doing what?

Way to go Bill

This will be a test of whether the Canwest Media silence will produce the desired outcome. I wish I had more confidence that their conspiracy of silence will backfire.

your coverage of this story

your coverage of this story has been top notch. as a vancouverite who has been out-of-province the past few years, i wouldnt have had a clue of what was going on if i had been forced to rely on the vancouver dailies, the globed and mail, and the cbc.

BC Rail Cabinet Documents

Here's my questions for the lawyers. Can Judge Bennett's order compel the production of papers that are normally exempt from disclosure under the provincial FOI statute on the grounds that they are Cabinet documents? Does her order overide other legislation governing what is, and is not, to be made public?

Generally speaking, what are the timeframes for making BC Cabinet papers public? At the federal level we get disclosures every so often of what was said in some Cabinet meeting twenty five or more years ago. What did Trudeau have to say during the War Measures Crisis, that kind of thing. But in BC there are no similar regular waves of material coming out of the archives? Are BC Cabinet papers secret forever? Or are there simply no records beyond the most simplistic orders issued?

More on Basi-Virk decision on my Blog - Tieleman

Thanks very much for the kind comments from previous posts on my coverage and thanks also to the Tyee and David Beers for publishing the long-version work I've done on this important case in addition to 24 hours newspaper stories.

I have added some additional coverage on the question as to why the RCMP dropped ex-Finance Minister Gary Collins as a suspect and why there isn't a scrap of documentation, as noted by Justice Bennett, to my blog.

See: http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/

Regards - Bill Tieleman

FOI

It is my understanding that an FOI query WAS sent to all ministries before the current stage of disclosure began in mid - February. At the time all possible connections which might have involved this case and its substantive matter were meant to have been vetted and pulled for possible use by the court.

I believe, although Bill T would have more details on this, a representative of the Attorney General's Ministry (George Copley, former head of Constitutional Law) was in court at the time with his assistant. Although I'm not aware what materials he provided for the court; I do know he was granted status before the bench and I believe some of his remarks were reported in the press at the time.

I suspect that it's too late in the day for the Government to claim privilege successfully over any documentation they haven't already asserted as protected - especially given the Premier's often quoted willingness to let everything hang out in the interests of justice and fairness.

So far as I know, the Crown has been given carte blanche to use whatever they have to prosecute the accused. Attempting, at this late stage, to assert overt political influence over a Special Prosecutor who was nominally hired to insure against it would be as damaging as disclosing the embarrassing material may well be. The problem has now arisen because the accused have a Constitutional right to full disclosure of the WHOLE case against them. The intricacies of the reporting relationships behind the work Basi and Virk (not to mention Pilothouse and other BC Liberal Party functionaries) did relative to BCRail have still NOT been disclosed. It’s no coincidence, in my view, that the material which related to the two aides ‘character’ (or lack of it) has already come out in court prior to yesterday.

It might seem, to someone with a suspicious mind, that this was no coincidence. Fortunately for the public and the cause of justice this case may actually continue to some positive conclusion. The accused, and the public needs to keep this in mind, are actually doing the people of this province a big favour by persevering.

In my opinion.

Some of this is going to stick; maybe quite a lot of it.

Is timing the determining factor

I suspect that it's too late in the day for the Government to claim privilege successfully over any documentation they haven't already asserted as protected - ...

To me the question isn't timing at all, it's what takes precedence. Can a judge order the production of documents that are considered Cabinet secrets? Yes or no?

In national security cases even judges cannot get at some materials.

You misunderstood my point

Copley was in court to say that the government had already complied and that the documents which had been handed over - including the material from the raid - were being handed over to the judge to deal with according to her discretion. I don't believe she's actually looked at every document by any means. I'll check my notes from February/March to see if I can dig out Copley's actual words. Some of the long list of documents referenced in the February 26 Notice of Application for Discovery were being withheld - according to the defence. All the materials were in the project room - or were supposed to have been; clearly the decision about what gets included (the crown will respond on Thursday) is not yet finally determined.

My point simply was that any assertion of privilege must have already been made (cabinet documents etc.) but, privilege - except in cases of national security (and that's still at a judge's [although a special judge] discretion), does not trump illegality.

In other words, if a bona fide government body acts illegally it cannot later claim the protection of privilege to hide those facts or escape prosecution.

The precedent in BC is the Sommers case - despite Bonner's attempt to derail it for, as I remember, something like two years, it was eventually unsuccessful and Bonner went to jail. And that was pre-Charter jurisprudence. The case for openness is much stronger today.

Another key point the defence is likely to make (and which was part of the Notice of Application) is that the warrants used to gather the information upon which the prosecution based its case were not obtained properly. I think that has little likelihood of being sustained, but, it's not outside the realm of possibility.
As in every legal case, the defence presents every possible argument even if many of them, in their heart of hearts, they know to be weak.

The accused's best defence, in the end, is that they were doing the bidding of their superiors. Bennett's demand for all the evidence pertaining to Collin's possible role in this indicates she's not going to shut 'that' door and it may still be the centre of any case that eventually continues past this stage.

EDITED. ALLEGATIONS ONLY SO FAR. DURING COURT PROCEEDINGS, GUILT CANNOT BE PRESUMED OR KNOWN UNTIL PROVEN. -- TYEE EDITOR

Sleaze! Sleaze! Sleaze!

First of all, thank you Bill for such good reporting and for keeping this story front and center. I listen to you and Norman on the Bill Good show on Mondays and agree with most of your views. I have noticed that even Norman is recognizing the sleaze that has gone on in this affair and is opening his eyes to the rot that is currently occupying the legislature - OUR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES!

As I read these articles, I can't help but recall the night they raided Glen Clark's home and the absolute invasion of privacy that Mrs. Clark and their children had to endure. That was one of the most blatant orchestrated, dirty cases of politicking that I have ever seen. As well, I recall the subsequent charges against Glen Clark and then I compare all that to this fiasco. I hope that we are soon rid of Gordon Campbell and his ilk and that they are never again given an opportunity of power or influence in this province or in our country. In addition to all that, I have never regained respect for the reporters and the TV station who accompanied the police on the "Glen Clark" raid. Wouldn't it be great to have been a "fly on the wall" when all that was planned. These latest "dirty tricks" are just an extension of many other past events that have gone on since these crooks came into power.

As we see more and more incompetence, lying and possible fraud on the part of the Liberals, I pray that they will all be brought down politically and that they will end up in jail where they belong. They have robbed the people of this province for far too long already and their demise is long, long, overdue. Let's get some decency, common sense and statesmanship back into this province. Let's elect people who will work for the betterment of all the people who live here and pay the taxes that keep it running. Let's make sure that the people we elect know full well that they are employed by us, the electorate and that we expect and will demand policies, laws and behaviour that will serve us, not the few cronies who reap the financial benefits from our efforts.

Thanks again, Bill, and keep up the excellent coverage!

Which BC Rail documents were turned over?

Copley was in court to say that the government had already complied and that the documents which had been handed over - including the material from the raid - were being handed over to the judge to deal with according to her discretion. ... All the materials were in the project room - or were supposed to have been; ...

My point simply was that any assertion of privilege must have already been made (cabinet documents etc.) but, privilege - except in cases of national security (and that's still at a judge's [although a special judge] discretion), does not trump illegality.

But Mr West, has the BC Govt handed over all BC Rail documents already? Or are there more papers not seized in the original raid and not turned over subsequently in response to an FOI request?

I still want to know to what degree a judge can order the production of provincial Cabinet papers that are nomally considered secret. To what degree do the needs of a criminal trial process take precedence over the sound conduct of provincial public policy?

Suppose there are documents relating to the government's negotiating posture in deals worth hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of dollars, and that a criminal trial is going on that involves only minor charges? Is it proportionate to suggest that the Govt of B.C. lose leverage in a matter worth billions just so that a small trial, perhaps one involving a "third rate burglary", can have in front of it every conceivable piece of evidence it neeeds for a fair trial of an essentially petty issue?

Does the judge in a criminal trial have the power to overide the FOI Act provisions, and those of other Acts, and to compel the production of papers normally kept secret? Does a judge have this power with regard to both federal and provincial Cabinet papers?

I agree with a poster above,

I agree with a poster above, the delay and obstruction is a tactic designed to eventually force the judge to throw the case out because the defence has not been given all the material needed to properly defend their clients. Does anyone really think that the required material will now suddenly appear? Does anyone really think that the redactions will not make it look like ink was spread across the pages? Does anyone really believe that the government will now cooperate? Does anyone really believe the RCMP will willingly compromise the officers of the formerly respected force? Answer yes to any of the above, and I have a bridge I can sell you. Or a railway.

It's all there....

An excellent piece above, G West. From start to finish.

Exactly, it's all there in Hansard...but it has largely never been reported on.

It could have been the investigative meat of a multitude of articles....and it could have provoked a thousand more very important questions to be asked.

Some really fine people worked very hard on our behalf to ask those difficult questions....almost every one of those questions was met with a refusal to answer or a sly diversionary tactic by this government. This, too was largely not reported on.

What a disservice to the people of this province... and this country.

Hansard starts to get really

Hansard starts to get really interesting regarding the raids on the legislature from Tuesday, March 2, 2004 onwards ...just find Joy and Jenny...and you're on your way:

http://www.leg.bc.ca/hansard/37th5th/h40302p.htm

Supreme Court rules et al.

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/ will get you to the Supreme Court. Wander down the page and you find a bunch of stuff including two documents signed by the judge in the BB&V case. If you want to read decisions this week they are available and there is a search capability for past cases. Pretty straight forward. It has a section for Appeals Copurt decisions and Provincialnal Court decisons as well. Go take a test drive. There is also a site that allows you for some money to do on line searches of many documents, there are restrictions.
There is of course a site for supreme Court of Canada decisions as well as sites for each province. Isn't the internet grand? all that information free for the taking. And of course if you know the direct route you can read what's cooking in the courts each day. That gets posted quite early in the morning. If you have a problem finding such stuff just post again for more information.

Legal Ramifications of a Mistrial

Can you, Bill, or anyone else out there explain what the legal ramifications will be if the Basi-Virk situation is declared a mistrial? My greatest fear is that this will all die and fade away with no one held accountable for all that has very likely occurred. I realize that at this stage these are allegations, but as the saying goes "Where there is smoke, there is fire." Can Judge Bennett or Crown Prosecutors lay charges against anyone else, such as Gary Collins or Bornmann based on the allegations of the pre-trial evidence. If Judge Bennett finds questionable data in all the evidence which she has ordered to be submitted, can she or Crown Prosecutors pursue the matter further in the courts if a mistrial is declared for B & V? Also, to refresh my memory, who and what precipitated the raid on the Legislature in the first place? It happened so long ago that I have forgotten those details? Thanks to anyone who can clarify all this for me.