[ad_1]
Original caption: Part of the details of Meng Wanzhou’s arrest were exposed, and law enforcement officials admitted that there was an error in the procedure.
A round of hearings in Meng Wanzhou’s extradition case on whether there was any procedural abuse during the arrest by Canadian law enforcement agencies ended on October 30 local time at the Superior Court of British Columbia, Canada in Vancouver. Witnesses from Canadian law enforcement agencies admitted when they appeared in court for cross-examination that there were errors in the arrest process for Meng Wanzhou.
During this five-day hearing, three witnesses from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Border Services Agency appeared in court and agreed to cross-examination by the prosecution and the defense. This is the first time the outside world has learned of the specific process of the arrest by the Canadian law enforcement agency of Huawei’s Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou at Vancouver International Airport on December 1, 2018.
RCMP officer admits procedural “error”
The first half of the court appearance was Canadian RCMP officer Winston Yep (Winston Yep). He admitted that he knew this was a “high-profile” case before the action.
An affidavit Ye provided to the judge prior to the action described Meng Wanzhou as “unrelated” to Canada. He signed without a background information check and later found that the content did not match the facts but did not make corrections or take any corrective action. He admitted that this was his “mistake.”
In this case, the content of the affidavit is the only source of information that the judge can rely on in deciding whether to issue a provisional arrest warrant.
During the operation, law enforcement officers did not “immediately arrest” Meng Wanzhou on the plane according to the arrest warrant. Ye explained that this was due to “security concerns” and respect for the Border Services Agency’s “jurisdiction” at the airport, but did not mention security or jurisdiction issues in any note or document.
Ye said that she was worried about Meng’s anti-recognition ability and that she was also worried about her carrying a knife. But after Meng Wanzhou got off the plane, law enforcement officials did not search whether he was carrying weapons, instead confiscating and searching his electronic equipment.
He did not follow the prosecution’s previous request and did not write a calendar of events after the action. Regarding the action plan change and many other details, Ye replied that “I can’t remember.”
Meng Wanzhou’s defense attorney testified in court that Ye’s responses to some questions were not honest.
Border officials admitted to giving the code to the police by mistake
In the second half of the hearing, the main person who appeared in court was Canadian Border Service Officer Scott Kirkland. He said that before the operation, he learned that Meng Wanzhou was listed as a “national security” guard by the Canadian Border Service Agency. But after investigating Meng, he believed that she was not involved in national security matters.
Kirkland said he confiscated Meng Wanzhou’s mobile phone and put it in a radiation-proof bag provided by the FBI. He denied that the Border Services Agency was seizing cell phones for the FBI, but was not sure whether the RCMP would deliver the items to the United States.
He admitted that he “unintentionally” handed over the note with Meng Wanzhou’s mobile phone password to the RCMP along with his mobile phone, which basically violated privacy law. He said he had a headache and a heartache from this.
Kirkland also admitted that she was genuinely concerned that the delay in executing the arrest warrant due to Meng’s interrogation could affect her rights.
Bangladeshi defense lawyers believe that the Border Services Agency’s approach is to use its privileges to question Bangladesh without the presence of a lawyer and without explaining the true motive for the confiscated mobile phone.
The witness who appeared briefly in court in the last half of the hearing was Bryce McRae, a competent official with the Canadian Border Services Agency. He confirmed that the day before Meng Wanzhou flew to Vancouver, the FBI had called and “unusually” asked the Canadian Border Services Agency to provide the phone number of the supervisor on duty the next day. However, the next day the US FBI did not call the future.
Regarding the pre-operation meeting and some specific matters in the process of intercepting and questioning Meng Wanzhou, McCree said he “cannot remember.”
Meng Wanzhou’s team of lawyers has always believed that there was abuse of procedure in this case, so the extradition procedure must be suspended and three branches must be established for appeal. The first is to demonstrate the political nature of the case by high-level US politicians; the second is to show that law enforcement agencies have abused procedures during Meng’s detention at the airport; the third is to point out that the case records and other documents provided by the US to Canadian officials are misleading. Sex, there are important omissions and errors. This round of hearing belongs to the second branch.
In this round of hearings, prosecutors tried to show that the arrests met the procedural requirements and that negligence did not prevent the effectiveness of the extradition.
Due to the slower than expected progress in cross-examining witnesses, the court will investigate the follow-up schedule and add several sessions in November and December to continue cross-examination of witnesses and hold other section hearings. The next round of hearings will begin in mid-November. (End up)
[Editar: Zhou Chi](Zhou Chi)
