Meng walks out of her mansion in Vancouver and heads to the British Columbia Supreme Court on March 25.
On Thursday, March 25, the Supreme Court of British Columbia continued its hearing on Meng’s extradition case, with the prosecution’s lawyer saying there is no evidence that Canadian police improperly shared Meng’s cell phone information with the United States.
At the March 25 hearing, prosecution lawyer John Gibb-Carsley said there was no evidence that Canadian police improperly shared Meng’s cell phone information with the United States. John Gibb-Carsley said Meng’s lawyer’s claim that Meng’s cell phone serial number was sent to the FBI by a Canadian police officer as part of an undercover investigation was based on “speculation and conjecture” and that the judge should have rejected an “adverse inference. The judge should have refused to draw an “Adverse Inference.
Meng’s lawyer, Scott Fenton, said the judge should have rejected the “Adverse Inference. In his March 21 statement, Scott Fenton said that retired RCMP officer Ben Chang was an important witness and that the Canadian police had committed malpractice by failing to preserve evidence such as the retired officer’s texts and emails. Fenton asked the judge to draw an “adverse inference” that he had cooperated with the FBI in sending Meng’s cell phone messages.
Retired police officer Ben Chang is now a casino supervisor in Macau. He provided an affidavit to the court denying that he had submitted Meng’s cell phone information to the FBI and hired an attorney to tell the court that he refused to testify.
On March 25, prosecuting attorney John Carsley told the court that there was “no evidence” to conclude that Chang had sent an electronic serial number (ESN) to the FBI. He also emphasized that there was no evidence that all of Ben Chang’s relevant emails and documents had not been collected, and that the materials had been kept in the Canadian Mounted Police’s management system and shared with Meng’s legal team. He added that at least 634 prosecution documents, totalling 2,753 pages, were disclosed to Meng’s team during the course of the case.
Carsley said it was unreasonable for Meng’s lawyers to expect the judge to draw an adverse inference based on Chang’s refusal to testify.
Judge Heather Holmes, who is hearing the case, said further case law research will be done on Officer Ben Chang’s refusal to testify.
Border Agency checks cell phones for legality
Prosecution lawyers say Canada Border Agency officials acted within the law when they seized Meng’s cellphone and asked for her password before arresting her on Dec. 1, 2018, and that they had the authority to conduct a limited search of the phone to determine whether the immigrant could enter the country.
The prosecution’s attorney said that this argument was based on a search of “goods” under the Customs Act, not the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. He emphasized that previous court precedent has established that Canada Border Services Agency officers can conduct limited searches of telephones at the border to help determine whether a person is inadmissible for criminal or national security reasons, but they cannot conduct more in-depth criminal investigations.
The current round of hearings is expected to last until May.
Recent Comments