Speaking of crimes in high places, Catherine Wedge does it again. She is banning Person X from testifying in the Surrey Six Murder Trial. Time for her to go to jail. That is insane. Her ruling claims the Crown had successfully asserted privilege over relevant material, which would otherwise have been disclosed to the accused, on the basis that its disclosure would tend to identify the police informer. Everybody knows who Person X is. When he testifies in court the accused will see him. Not letting him testify is insane. Catherine Wedge is sitting on the wrong side of the bench.
Update: There appears to be some confusion between person x and person y. The one I was under the impression is person x is the star witness. The one others are claiming it is is not the star witness. Yet the one I'm thinking of started cooperating with the police first. That would make him person x not person y. I have to get confirmation still about which is which.
OK it does appear that Person X and Person Y have been mysteriously switched around from what they originally were. Which once against shows how stupid these ridiculous publication bans are. Banning the new person X from testifying is not as bad as banning the new person Y from testifying but it's still messed up. Switching the names around and banning the publication of their names erodes the courts accountability to the public which threatens our democratic system. The judges in BC are far too arrogant for the public good.
I think you should double check the ruling I believe it is to protect a different informant not person x I believe it is to protect the identity of someone who is not involved in this case but has information that would tend to contradict person x credibility and as he is still an informant allowing him to testify in this case to contradict person x testimony would put this informant in danger
ReplyDeleteI realize the rationalization involves protecting some other police informant but the bottom line is that not letting person X testify is absolute insanity. It mocks natural justice and makes the whole trial one big kangaroo court joke.
ReplyDeleteI agree they should be allowed his testimony if even in a closed courtroom allowing defense to cross examine him with any information that could possibly link back to informant sealed but at least info given to judge I understand it may not be ideal but at least it can then be considered and given whatever weight by the judge it deserves as there is no jury in this trial I do believe they allow that in the states in special circumstances
ReplyDeleteThat would be one option but let’s face it, Person X is the star witness. He’s the reason the case has come to trial. He needs to give testimony when the jury is present. If that means the crown needs to have time to put the other CI into protective custody so be it.
ReplyDeleteThe only feasible exception would be if they are saving Person X for the Jamie Bacon trial and they have enough evidence against the other two in this trial.
ReplyDelete