Saturday, February 5, 2011

October 18, 2010 Last day of the BC Rail Trial: Why were the RCMP in Attendance?

Its been said here before, by many others too, why has the AG Courts Service Branch kept the public in the dark on all trials in Vancouver (perhaps even the whole Province), by not creating a Singular On-line Schedule (instead of the DOUBLE ONEs) so the public could have attended the high profile Basi Virk trial, also known as the BC Rail Trial on a daily basis, on time.

On the very last day, October 18, 2010, the Court room was packed with the Press, 7 RCMP officers and not very many of the public (we obviously didn't get the email memo) for such an auspicious moment to witness the guilty pleas of two defendants, with the third defendant having his charges Stayed.

I received a history lesson today that left me wondering just what happened so suddenly, so unexpectedly, on October 18, 2010.   Why were there so many high profile RCMP officers inside Court Room #54, when there was a STANDING order from the Judge that said otherwise:

"....In the case of Mr. Collins, he has a lawyer here every day. As best I can read in the newspapers, he's speaking for Mr. Collins," McCullough told Justice Bennett in asking that any witnesses for the subsequent trial be banned from attending the disclosure hearing.

McCullough also noted the presence of an RCMP officer who will be called to testify in the trial as one of the investigators.

"There will be a ban from here on in -- any witness cannot be in the courtroom," Bennett ordered immediately."
- Bill Tieleman  May 4, 2007

From the Vancouver Sun there's this photo of the Defense team, and their clients, walking down the stairs to the Glass wall to the waiting reporters outside of the Court House, and who's that standing to the left in the photo?




"Kevin DeBruyckere. RCMP One of the lead RCMP investigators in Project Everywhichway, amazingly Inspector DeBruyckere is also by coincidence the brother-in-law of B.C. Liberal Party executive director Kelly Reichert.

DeBruyckere disclosed that information to his superiors in March 2004, but defence lawyers have strongly argued that his relationship is a conflict of interest that should have had him removed from the case, but have not at any point alleged any impropriety on the part of either DeBruyckere or Reichert."
Bill Tieleman  Dec. 29, 2008


Seems straight forward to me, Publication Bans are imposed, a little cardboard sign is left standing on the Clerk's desk near the Judge so it could be read by all, but you'd think that either someone would be standing with a Checklist (photos included) to ensure that no witnesses would enter the Court Room, or there would be a sign indicating there was Witness Ban along with a Publication Ban of who wouldn't be allowed into Court Room #54 at the door.


On or before October 18, 2010 who told who what when?   and did the Judge not take note of the, ummmm, indiscretion of a Court ban having been possibly broken or was it all over except for the shouting, long before the public was informed?

No comments: