On Tuesday, March 23, the Supreme Court of British Columbia continued its hearing in the Meng extradition case, with the prosecution’s lawyers and Meng’s legal team making further submissions on whether the Canadian police and the CBSA “abused their process” in arresting Meng at Vancouver Airport. Prosecution lawyers asked the judge not to lose sight of the “concern for the law” and that the judge was not conducting an “audit” of the actions of the CBP and the Mounties in court.
Did the U.S. and Canada “conspire”?
On Tuesday, Meng’s legal team wrapped up four days of presentations, repeatedly emphasizing that the CBSA allegedly violated Meng’s rights during her arrest at the airport on Dec. 1, 2018, by confiscating her electronics and cell phone and then handing over the password to the Canadian Mounted Police. The defense also argued that this was at the request of the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, and that Border Agency officials used special powers to cross-examine Meng, rather than allowing Canadian police to arrest her immediately.
According to Reuters, Meng’s attorney, Scott Fenton, has been arrested by Canadian police. In a March 21 statement, Scott Fenton said that retired RCMP officer Ben Chang was the most important witness on the issue of whether Canadian police improperly shared personal information about Meng’s electronic devices with the FBI, and that the Canadian police failed to retain evidence such as the retired officer’s texts and emails. This was a dereliction of duty. Fenton asked the judge to draw an “adverse inference,” meaning that if Chang were cross-examined, there would be evidence against the prosecution.
Prosecution lawyer Robert Frater responded in court March 23 that the Canadian Mounted Police and Canada Border Services Agency officials had done nothing wrong in the face of the extraordinary and high-profile circumstances, and that Meng’s lawyers had failed to prove the existence of a so-called “cross-border conspiracy” between the U.S. and Canadian authorities to prevent Meng’s arrival in Vancouver. to investigate Meng illegally upon her arrival in Vancouver in order to violate her rights.
How to Evaluate Different Versions of Events
According to CBC, Fretel asked Judge Holmes to focus on the facts and not be distracted when evaluating the two different versions of events. “One (the defense version) is an exciting representation of events that involves a secret criminal investigation, massive lying by witnesses, and a cross-border cover-up; while the other (the prosecution version) is a more down-to-earth account of events that includes two groups of public officials carrying out their tasks without any script to determine who should carry out their tasks first. “
Prosecution lawyers urged the judge to hear Meng’s extradition case and reject the conspiracy theory put forward by Meng’s legal team. He wants the judge to focus on the facts and the law when it comes to the issues surrounding Meng’s 2018 arrest.
He asked Judge Holmes not to lose sight of the “focus on the law,” which requires reviewing whether there is evidence that “compromises (Meng’s) right to a fair hearing or the integrity of the judicial system. He argued that judges are not in court to “audit” the actions of the Canada Border Agency and the Mounties, and suggested that judges consider five overarching questions.
Did the United States ask Canada to conduct a secret criminal investigation and participate in its cover-up?
Did the Canadian Mounted Police and Border Services Agency agree to participate in the cover-up?
- Was it lawful for the CBSA to detain and question Meng prior to her arrest by the Canadian Mounted Police?
Did the Canadian Mounted Police or the CBSA violate Meng’s human rights?
- Did the Canadian side improperly share information with the United States and cover it up?
The prosecution lawyer said the defense has no evidence of complicity between U.S. authorities and Canada, and “if that cannot be proven, there is no reason for the CBP and the Mounted Police to do those things for their own purposes.” He argued that the judge should reject the defense’s other arguments.
Judge Holmes said she could consider whether there was misconduct by the Mounted Police and the Canada Border Agency, regardless of whether she found any involvement by the FBI. Holmes asked another prosecution lawyer in court about the possible sharing of Meng’s computer information. The lawyer responded that the FBI wanted the information in order to make a formal request to the Canadian side for information related to the device, and that even if it had been shared, the Canadian Mounted Police would have had the right to do so.
A test of whether there can be a fair trial
Meng is charged by the U.S. with, among other things, making false statements to HSBC and concealing a relationship between huawei and Skycom Tech Co. that put the bank at risk of violating U.S. sanctions policies against Iran. Both Meng and Huawei deny the charges against them.
The Supreme Court of Canada has previously said that judges should determine when ruling on cases like Meng’s: whether the right to a fair trial or the integrity of the judicial system is threatened, whether alternative remedies exist, and whether the interests of the accused outweigh the interests of society in having the case heard fairly.
Meanwhile, the “espionage case” involving two Canadian citizens concluded behind closed doors in Beijing on March 22, with no word from Communist authorities on when the verdict will be handed down. Although the Chinese Communist Party has not publicly acknowledged that it detained Canadian citizens Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor in retaliation for Canada’s arrest of Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou, it is widely believed by the international community to be “hostage diplomacy.
Recent Comments