However Robert Frater informed B.C. Supreme Court docket Affiliate Chief Justice Heather Holmes even when she does discover a violation of Meng’s proper to safety towards unreasonable search and seizure below Part 8 of the Constitution of Rights and Freedoms, it would not be sufficient to toss the case.
“Ordinarily, if you happen to’ve bought a Part 8 breach the treatment is exclusion of proof,” Frater informed Holmes.
“And you’ll search extensive and much to discover a case through which a Part 8 breach, by itself, led to a keep of proceedings.”
Covert legal investigation alleged
Frater wrapped up the Crown’s response Friday afternoon to a bid by Meng’s legal professionals to toss the case over alleged violations of her rights throughout occasions surrounding her arrest at Vancouver’s airport on Dec. 1, 2018.
Meng is Huawei’s chief monetary officer and the daughter of the Chinese language telecommunication big’s billionaire founder, Ren Zhengfei.
The USA needs her rendered to New York, the place she is charged with fraud and conspiracy in relation to allegations she lied to an HSBC financial institution government about Huawei’s management of an organization accused of violating U.S. financial sanctions towards Iran.
Prosecutors declare the financial institution relied on Meng’s alleged misrepresentations in deciding to proceed dealing with monetary transactions for Huawei, putting HSBC prone to loss and prosecution.
The defence and the Crown have spent the previous two weeks combing by the actions of RCMP and CBSA officers in relation to Meng’s arrest and the seizure of her cellphones, laptop computer and pill.
Meng’s legal professionals declare the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation conspired with Canadian authorities to mount a covert legal investigation by having the CBSA look at Meng for 3 hours with no lawyer regardless of a warrant that referred to as for her “rapid” arrest.
They’ve additionally accused the CBSA of unlawfully sharing info with the RCMP and declare police then despatched technical info to the FBI outdoors of official channels.
‘No search on the finish of the day’
Throughout testimony final fall, the CBSA officer who requested Meng for the passcodes to her two telephones admitted giving RCMP the piece of paper on which he wrote the numbers — claiming it was a mistake.
Frater informed Holmes the defence has didn’t show the existence of a conspiracy, makes an attempt to cowl up wrongdoing or any significant delay in Meng’s arrest.
“That leaves … the query of search,” he informed the decide.
“And one factor you’ve on this case is that there was an admitted misguided passing of the passcodes to the RCMP.”
Frater mentioned he believed that the sharing of the passcodes alone was not sufficient to determine a breach of Meng’s rights as a result of the RCMP by no means used them to look or open the units they usually weren’t given to the FBI.
“Whereas the RCMP had the 2 issues on the identical time — the passcodes and the telephones — that might permit them to breach Ms. Meng’s privateness, they by no means did it,” he mentioned.
“There was no search on the finish of the day. Though they’d the means to do the search, they did not do it.”
‘Arduous pressed’ to discover a comparable case
The decide repeatedly questioned Crown legal professionals throughout their submissions, suggesting that she was open to discovering that the CBSA and the RCMP could have breached Meng’s rights, even when they did not do it on the behest of the FBI.
The defence has argued that the decide can discover that one violation of the Constitution will not be sufficient by itself to warrant bringing an finish to the proceedings, however the cumulative impact of a collection of violations could be.
Frater mentioned he might discover solely one instance of a case the place a breach of the Part 8 proper to safety towards unreasonable search and seizure had resulted in a keep of proceedings.
The case concerned an Ontario girl who was arrested for fraud, strip-searched and humiliated in entrance of her colleagues.
“It wasn’t a case of merely excluding proof. It was a case the place a keep needed to be imposed,” Frater mentioned.
“Aside from that kind of excessive case … you may be arduous pressed to discover a Part 8 case that results in a keep.”
The defence will give a closing reply to the Crown’s arguments on Monday morning after which start a brand new line of arguments associated to what they declare is jurisdictional overreach by the U.S. in bringing fees towards a Chinese language citizen for an alleged offence towards a British financial institution.
The proceedings are anticipated to pause on the finish of subsequent week earlier than returning for one closing three-week block beginning on the finish of April, when the topic of the extradition request itself shall be argued.