Lawyers for Tamara Lich pleaded for the court to declare “enough is enough” as the accused “Freedom Convoy” leader has now appeared before five different judges to argue for her release during the pretrial phase.
“If there was ever a time the court could say enough is enough…,” said Lawrence Greenspon, sounding exasperated at the close of Monday’s session after Crown prosecutor Moiz Karimjee asked to call Lich to testify — again — along with her surety.
“This court has discretion to say ‘enough is enough,’ Mr. Karimjee,” Greenspon said, noting that both Lich and her court-approved surety have already been called to the stand twice to testify.
“Now they want to call (witnesses) for a third time while Ms. Lich sits in jail.”
Lich has now spent an accumulated 48 days in custody at the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre since her initial arrest, Greenspon said, and argued Lich had already spent more time in pretrial custody “as a presumptively innocent person” than she would have served if convicted and sentenced at trial.
Superior Court Justice Andrew Goodman, who was brought in from Toronto to preside over Monday’s hearing, said he would allow the Crown to call Lich and her surety for cross-examination Tuesday morning as the bail review resumes.
The identity of Lich’s surety remains protected by a publication ban.
After hearing a full-day recap of many of the same arguments that have already been presented to four other judges during Lich’s earlier bail hearings, Goodman said he would likely render his decision on whether there were “errors in law” committed by Justice of the Peace Paul Harris in the most recent ruling that denied Lich bail and sent her back to jail.
The seasoned judge called it “a very unique situation” that he had never before encountered in his years on the bench.
Goodman is also expected to hear further submissions from the Crown, and from Greenspon and fellow defence counsel Eric Granger, during Tuesday’s session.
“Then we’ll see where we’re at with respect to providing a ruling (on the bail review),” Goodman said.
Lich was arrested Feb. 17 near the culmination of the three-week demonstration that blockaded downtown streets and was initially denied bail on Feb. 22, though that Ontario Court decision was then overturned in March by Superior Court Justice John Johnston.
Similar to Goodman, Johnston was also brought in from an outside jurisdiction to rule on that bail review.
Lich was then hauled back before court in a virtual hearing before Superior Court Justice Kevin Phillips in May after the Crown alleged she breached two conditions of her release — one when she accepted an invitation to a gala hosted by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, and another condition when she appeared in a social media post as the “brand ambassador” for a trucker-themed “freedom pendant.”
Phillips ruled in Lich’s favour and allowed her to attend the gala, while reinforcing the conditions — including an order forbidding contact with fellow convoy leaders — that had been set out in her bail plan.
Lich was then re-arrested in her Medicine Hat, Alta. home on a Canada-wide warrant late last month and charged with breaching her bail conditions when she attended that June 16 gala and had a brief congratulatory exchange with fellow convoy organizer Tom Marazzo.
She also posed for a photograph with Marazzo that was widely circulated on social media following the gala.
Justice of the Peace Paul Harris revoked Lich’s bail and sent her back to jail at the close of the related hearing, with Greenspon promptly promising to lodge an appeal through a bail review.
Greenspon on Monday characterized the interaction between Lich and Marazzo as “nothing more than a handshake” and a group photo, while Granger argued Harris made several “errors in law” in his ruling two weeks ago.
Granger said there was no evidence the interactions “had anything to do with reviving a street protest,” which was the primary concern when that condition was imposed, and implored Goodman to perform his own analysis of the breach.
Karimjee cast Lich as a “decision-maker” in the convoy and referenced text messages between her and co-accused Chris Barber discussing a strategy to “gridlock” the city.
A key point of contention remains the perceived severity of the offences — including mischief, intimidation and related counselling charges — and the potential for a lengthy prison term.
That point — with Karimjee suggesting the Crown could seek as much as ten years for the combined offences, while Greenspon countered she may have already served her time — has yielded differing opinions from the four judges who have heard the evidence.
“We’re not talking about sedition, we’re not talking about inciting a riot. We’re talking about mischief here,” Goodman said as he challenged Karimjee to produce a similar case as legal precedent.
“Do you know of any case where mischief over $5,000 is even close to ten years, or even a penitentiary sentence?” the judge asked.
“The answer is no,” Karimjee replied, “because there has never been an occupation of a city — the capital of Canada — for three weeks.
“If the intention to blockade a city for three weeks does not attract a potentially lengthy term of imprisonment, what would?”
The hearing resumes Tuesday.
ahelmer@postmedia.com
Twitter.com/helmera
Post a Comment