A further legal update

Note: Due to financial difficulties, I can not afford to order the transcripts of my court proceedings. This legal update is true to the best of my knowledge and understanding.

After I left the Crown Counsel office in the afternoon of Monday January 8, I went to downtown Vancouver to try to seek consulate protection from a foreign consulate. For the next two days, I kept in contact with this consulate and was told that a decision had not been made as to whether I would be offered protection.

Convinced that I would be put in jail - with a possible 18 months sentence - after the scheduled trial on January 11 and/or 12, I went to the consulate again in the morning of January 11 to make a final appeal for consulate protection. However, my attempt was not successful. I tried the another consulate and was turned back too. In desperation, I made a call to the Chinese Consulate before heading back to the New Westminster courthouse. I was arrested in the courthouse as per a bench warrant issued by the Judge.

To my total surprise, I was told that the Crown would seek an adjournment of the trial if I elected or consented to proceed summarily in the Provincial Court. According to the Crown, I had never consented to proceed summarily based on the new Information sworn in March 2006. Also, the Judge did not allow the Crown to proceed summarily during the Trial Confirmation Hearing (TCH) on December 11 because I did not give my consent. And if I consented to proceed summarily, UBC LSLAP would be able to take up my case, in which case I would have a reason for an adjournment, i.e., to arrange for UBC LSLAP to represent me.

The Crown's statement that I had not consented to proceed summarily was not true. Besides, I did not recall the Judge ever asked me during the TCH on December 11 how I wished to proceed, or prevented the Crown from proceeding summarily because I did not give my consent. However, on advice of my duty counsel, I elected (again) to proceed summarily because it gave me the best chance of being released from custody. Indeed, the Crown did join my duty counsel in asking for an adjournment and I was released at the end of the day.

Still, the Crown's actions puzzled me. Although I had originally chosen in 2005 a judge-and-jury trial in the Supreme Court based on the old Information of two counts of charges, UBC LSLAP consented on my behalf in March 2006 to proceed summarily in the Provincial Court based on the new Information of one count of charge only.

My recollection is that, after Crown Counsel Bruce Stewart had informed me in March 2006 that they would proceed summarily on one count only, I went to UBC LSLAP clinic for the second time. I had previously tried to seek help from UBC LSLAP in January 2006, but was told that they could not take up my case because of the (original) indictable charge(s). It was precisely because of the new Information with reduced charge(s) that UBC LSLAP, having spoken to the Crown and consented to proceed summarily on my behalf, was able to take up my case in March 2006.

Indeed, in a letter dated November 10, 2006, UBC LSLAP provided me with a synopsis of the work they had done on my file since March 2006:

- Reviewed particulars and consulted with supervising lawyer to determine charge could be taken by our program.

- Inquired with Crown as to how they would be proceeding.

....

- They said they would be proceeding summarily.

- The Trial confirmation hearing is scheduled for December 11, 2006 at 9:30am in Room 206 of the New West Court House.

- The Trial is scheduled for January 11th and 12th at 9:30am in the same room.

And they had told me about the election of court:

- Answered [client's] question regarding the election of Court. The Trial should be in Provincial Court and the confirmation hearing should be on same date and in same location as was previously specified.

That's why I had always thought that January 11, 2007 was the date of my final trial. However, in seeking clarifications from Crown Counsel Lindsay Wold the next day (Friday January 12), I was told that (1) my court the previous day was set to be a Preliminary Inquiry; (2) although she was not present during the TCH on December 11, 2006, the Crown's note indicated that the Judge did not allow them to proceed summarily because I had not consented; and (3) to my complete shock and disbelief, the Crown did not have the record that UBC LSLAP ever spoke to them on my behalf with respect to the election of Court.

Suffice it to say that, although I am a little relieved that I now have some breathing room, I am nevertheless not satisfied with Crown's explanation for their actions on or around January 11, 2007.

A Legal Update

Even though I knew my trial on Thursday would be fixed, I still tried my best to prepare for it. Here is what happened after my last court appearance on Monday, December 11.

After my last court appearance, I went to the Court Registry to try to get a copy of the Trial Readiness Report (TRR). A member of the registry staff told me, having spoken to the Crown Counsel office, that I would need to call the office myself. The next day, I called the office and spoke to a secretary. Since I, not being a lawyer, did not know what was in my file, I simply requested a copy of everything. In my conversation with the secretary, I told her that I had the Particulars, but emphasized that I was requesting a copy of everything in my file. She told me I needed to wait for a week for it to be ready.

The following Monday December 18, I phoned the Crown Counsel office to follow up. I was told that my file was ready for pick-up. When I got to the office that afternoon, however, I found that only the Particulars were prepared for me. The secretary who handed the file to me would neither explain the discrepancy, nor let me speak to a Counsel about it.

On Tuesday December 19, I phoned the office again. Another secretary took my call. At first, she insisted that what I got the day before was my complete file. I asked her about the Trial Readiness Report. She then admitted that a mistake was made with respect to disclosing the TRR, but maintained that everything would have been disclosed if the TRR had been included. I then asked her about the letter(s) my Bail Officer wrote to the Crown Counsel. At first, she said there were no such letter(s) on my file. After I told her that I was told in court the previous week about such letter(s), she suddenly found the letter(s) on my file. In the end, having "found" those documents (TRR, letters by my Bail Officer and Crown's Initial Sentencing Position) in my file, she agreed to make them available to me.

On Wednesday December 20, I went in again to pick up those documents. The secretary at the front window told me that I needed to wait because Crown Counsel Bruce Stewart wanted to speak to me. I waited for more than 20 minutes, wondering what he wanted to speak to me about. In the end, the secretary simply handed me those documents without any explanation as to why Mr. Stewart changed his mind and did not want to see me any more.

While picking up those documents, I handed her a letter to the Crown Counsel with respect to the run-around I experienced in trying to receive the information about my case. I also requested in my letter that the Crown Counsel make sure everything had been disclosed to me so that I could properly prepare for my trial.

Two days later, I phoned the office to follow up on my letter. Crown Counsel Kathy Grant took my call. She apparently did not know about the letters my Bail Officer had written to the Crown on my behalf. Her ignorance on this issue caused some confusion in our conversation. Still, she was vehement that everything had been disclosed to me except for the DVD the police filmed during my protest. (The Crown Counsel would not release the DVD to me because they believed that I would use it on my website, despite my promise to the contrary. They would only arrange for me to come in to view the DVD, as Bruce Stewart told me back in March 2006.)

On Friday December 29, Crown Counsel Lindsay Wold left me a message, probably as a formal response to my letter. She still maintained that everything had been disclosed to me except for the DVD. And she could arrange for me to view the DVD "in our office".

On Wednesday January 3, I called Ms. Wold and made an appointment to view the DVD the next afternoon. She told me that the DVD is several hours long. She would arrange for somebody or herself to be present (to make sure I would not copy the DVD, I guess) during the viewing. She did not tell me that she would have to book a courtroom. In her previous message, she was clear, though, that the viewing would take place in the Crown Counsel office.

The next day, however, I felt that, with my back pain becoming acute, I would not be able to handle several hours' viewing the DVD, having been to the Food Bank and to my Bail Officer's in the morning. So I called and left a message for Ms. Wold to cancel the appointment. She called me back, apparently wanting to push me to make another appointment. It was during this conversation that she told me the DVD is only 27 minutes long and the venue would be in a courtroom. We made another appointment for 2 o'clock on Monday January 8.

On Monday, I went to the Crown's office on time. I told the secretary who came to the front window the purpose of my visit. The secretary nodded, but did not utter a word. She turned around and walked towards the inside of the office. I assumed that she was telling Ms. Wold that I had arrived. But for the next ten minutes or so, I did not see either her or Ms. Wold. I was simply left there wondering what happened.

At about 2:10, I saw someone coming in from outside. I asked if she was Lindsay Wold. She said she was. And she appeared to know who I am. She asked me to wait. After letting me wait for another 5 minutes, Ms. Wold finally came out of her office and told me that I would have to wait till 3 o'clock because, as she claimed, there was a mix-up in the booking of a courtroom.

Knowing that she knew about my back pain, I finally decided that I had enough. Besides, having finished looking through the Particulars myself - I never really studied them before - I noticed that at least one piece of key evidence was missing from them. -- When I was booked into New Westminster police cell after my protest, Sgt Kelly asked me several questions about the political aspects of my protest. This conversation or the video tape of it was not mentioned anywhere in the Particulars.-- I brought up this issue with Ms. Wold and she told me that I would have to make an application to the court to get it.

Of course, if I had a lawyer, I could have easily done that. Besides, if I had a lawyer, I could have perhaps launched a Charter challenge given the treatment I suffered while in police custody and/or the harassment and illegal surveillance I had been put through by RCMP/CSIS over the years. And if I had a lawyer, I could have asked the court to issue a subpoena so that I could expose my Bail Officer's undercover identity. If I had a lawyer, I might have been able to compel certain politicians and/or pundits to testify. If I had a lawyer, everything would have been a lot easier.

But I don't have a lawyer because my whole life is practically under the control of RCMP/CSIS, the culprit of Cecilia Zhang abduction and murder.

What barely two days to go till my trial, how do I feel?

Threatened with a possible jail sentence, strangely, I do not feel as much fear as about a month ago when I saw my Trial Confirmation Hearing approaching. I guess human beings can get used to every feeling, no matter how unpleasant it is. What I feel mostly, instead, is profound cynicism.

Although I am confident that eventually the truth shall come out and I will be vindicated, do I really have to pay such a high price in between, considering the toll it has already taken on me?

Will my seeking justice for Cecilia Zhang land me the ultimate injustice in a prison?

Will the killer roam free and the good guy get punished?

And the most cynical of all, having helped certain politicians winning their public offices with my cause, will I then have to go to prison for my cause with their indifference, if not tactical approval?

What more can I say? ... I can only rest my case.

(Some editing done 11 hours after posting.)