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.
- 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.
