Defence lawyer questions police approach to monitoring rally and whether video footage properly represents proximity.
A trial began Tuesday morning in Regina for four individuals who are alleged to have violated COVID-19-related public health orders on gathering limits.
The gathering was a rally at the Saskatchewan Legislative Building that seemed, in part, aimed at levying criticism toward the government’s handling of the pandemic, including measures such as the gathering limit in question.
Only Wipf personally attended the first day of the trial, held before Judge Murray Hinds in Regina Provincial Court, though the accused man did not return after lunch. He, along with Grandel and Friesen are represented by lawyer Elaine Anderson, who attended on behalf of her clients that were not present. Lavoie, who was said to have been set to represent herself, did not attend, but a decision was made by the judge to proceed with the trial, nonetheless.
Largely, the morning’s proceedings were dominated by the playing of a video, said to have been captured by surveillance equipment at the Legislative Building. Regina Police Service Cst. Aaron Robertson testified he monitored the rally via that equipment on the day in question.
He identified those on trial as being visible in the video.
As the video played, Hinds periodically asked the Crown for an estimate of how many people could be seen in attendance. At its apparent height, prosecutor Bryan Carter estimated that approximately 70 people were visible at the rally.
Under questions from Anderson, Robertson said he wasn’t instructed to scrutinize whether those he was monitoring were wearing masks or socially distancing, nor did police check to see if some in attendance were members of the same household.
She suggested to the witness that people in the video might appear closer together than they actually were. The officer did not say he agreed with that suggestion, instead preferring to let the video speak for itself.
He further testified that, prior to the rally, he’d been provided with a document that included photographs of the people he’d been asked to monitor, so he could identify them.
Robertson told the defence lawyer the images within the “operational order” may have come from social media or may have been collected by police at a “previous incident.”
That order, Anderson later told the judge, had not been disclosed to her prior to the trial, and it could represent a breach of her clients’ rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Carter explained that the Crown was not in possession of the document and that Regina police had declined to provide it, saying it was internal and irrelevant — something he’d notified Anderson of.
While Anderson took issue with the police characterization of the document’s relevance, Hinds said he couldn’t order the Crown to produce something it doesn’t possess, so he suggested she could request it from the police through an application.
Though later, the judge asked her: “Hasn’t the horse kind of left the barn on that?”
Identification isn’t at issue, the judge noted, as it was part of an agreed statement of facts that her clients were present at the rally.
Two more videos were played for court in the afternoon, both taken from Lavoie’s social media, according to another police witness, Cpl. Timothy Filazek.
One showed a woman, identified as Lavoie by yet another police witness, Cst. Peter Froh, receiving a ticket for violating the public health order. The other showed parts of the aforementioned rally. As it was played, Filazek identified a number of the accused in it.
After the testimony of afternoon witnesses, for whom Anderson had limited questions, Carter indicated it was the Crown’s intention to close its case.
Testimony heard thus far has been within a voir dire — a trial within a trial — from which admissible evidence can later be applied to the trial proper.
The trial is scheduled to continue Wednesday, with arguments expected to be made on Canadian constitutional rights to life, liberty and security of the person.
According to prosecutors, voluntary payment amount for fines issued to those on trial was $2,800 each, but if they are convicted, the penalty will be left up to a judge. The proceedings that began Tuesday only address one offence alleged against each of those on trial, some of whom, such as Friesen, have been accused of multiple offences relating to violation of public health orders.
Post a Comment