Hope that the trial of two Freedom Convoy organizers would last only four weeks may be dashed after the defence raised complaints about receiving heaps of new evidence three days after the trial began.
Justice Heather Perkins-McVey told the court there is a potential risk for the trial to go “off the rails,” if it continues to evolve in the way it has been going. She used the day of court time on Friday to try to “crystallize the evidence” for the remainder of the trial.
Before that, there was a sense of tension in the courtroom as Crown and defence lawyers sparred over the timing of the delivery of binders full of text messages.
The justice called a short recess to step away from the bench to “settle” herself after telling the lawyers she was “very unhappy” about the late-stage disclosure.
“This should have been done well before the trial,” she chided before leaving the courtroom.
This case is in the hands of a single judge. Does anyone know whether the process allows the judge to opine on the rationale or lack thereof behind the government mandates that the protest was addressing?
There’s a lot going on in various jurisdictions trying to peel back the “who knew what and when” issues about Covid mandates. The masks have been shown to be ineffective, vaccines did not prevent transmission, natural immunity is significantly superior to the vaccines and governments systematically coerced social media companies to censor “misinformation” (often clearly factually correct) that promoted vaccine hesitancy. In other words, history has shown that the truckers had an excellent factual basis for the protests.
Does this matter as far as this case is concerned?
No, it does not. All that matters is that an example be made pour encourager les autres.
Already grounds for a mistrial.
A mistrial may be an out for the prosecution to withdraw the charges
A trial reschedule is in order at the minimum.
1. Initial denial of bail, something almost unheard of in Canada,
2. “Inadvertent” release of phone records between the accused by the prosecutors.
3. Late release of evidence to the defense.
4. A federal government that publicized their loathing for the defendents.
If I were the judge, I would be cranky too. She might now be looking for ways to deliver a non-guilty verdict on at least some of the charges, and minimize the sentences for the rest, lest she be considered part of a political railroading.
Initial denial of bail, expressly against the supreme court of canada ruling that everyone should get bail as soon as possible (see R. V Antic, and others)
Quite right, KM. There is a long standing tradition in Canadian and British courts of judges refusing to have the judicial process used for political purposes. If the prosecution offends the judge sufficiently she may well throw the whole thing out. And this would be regardless of Justatwit pouting about it in public. You will not see any of this on Ceeb or their fartcatchers at CTV.
“The judge vowed before the trial began that she would keep the proceedings on the rails, and told the court Friday that is still her intention.”
Well, not surprising that the Judge wants the trial to proceed as intended to come to the correct result that her political masters demand.
Yes. Appointed judges are responsible to their political masters and to God (their own oaths and conscience, which are very strong in moral people). Elected judges are less so to the political masters, and more so to the political will of their electorate.
If we knew whether the judge is a hack or a decent, God fearing (by whatever name) human being then we would have a better idea whether they go free or throw away the key.
The public order emergency inquiry delivered precisely the result that the Trudeau government demanded. Why does anyone think for one second that this Stalinesque show trial will be any different? Sockboy and his fascist cronies are positively salivating at imitating the repugnant Jan 6 lynchings in the US. These tyrants will kneel to the Burn/Loot/Murder arsonists but will throw peaceful pro-liberty protestors in the slammer, pour encourager les autres. Justin openly admires Maoist China, and this is his chance to prove it. If you think he won’t seize it then you’re catastrophically naive.
Bang on Trodwell. Always nice to see you pop in.
Canada is on trial in that Ottawa court room.
And support for western separatism will go through the roof after the predetermined verdict and sentences are handed down.
I don’t see anything hard and capable of bearing long, heavy loads. I see a fur bearing creature with a pouch that likes to bounce.
apologies to our Aussie friends and visitors, but this has all the markings of a kangaroo court.
Hopefully, the defense can get this charade thrown out based on a number of criteria: evidentiary nonsense, procedural grounds and basic reality. But, based on the far-left, Liberal penetration of our judiciary, I’m not so confident that common sense will prevail.
Come now.. Lynching’s are supposed to be quick and to the point.. Dragging it out into some “painful” legal proceeding is not advised :)..
On trial, not for the crime but the motive.. Even though the motive is not illegal.. LOLs on the lawyers who were unable to find the nearest tree..
The process is the punishment. If you’re found innocent, at the cost of 5-10 years of your life and your entire savings, you’ve still lost.
Here’s my thinking.
The prosecution has realized they have an unwinable case and this is their attempt to have a mistrial declared without the verdict of not guilty becoming official
That’s my thinking too.
Fix!
We don’t have Discovery any more? Prosecution is allowed to dump 4000 pages on the Defense -at trial-?
Prosecution is supposed to present ALL their evidence in Discovery. Anything else is shenanigans, and the judge should disallow all of it.
And if the judge doesn’t, then we know she’s bent.
We already know which railway was selected and it’s planned destination.