Thread by @glen_mcgregor

Court is in session. Justice of the Peace Andrew Seymour to deliver a decision on protest organizer Pat King's bail application. (No, I can't share a Zoom link because the room gets overloaded.)

Enter, screen left: Pat King takes his seat in the defendant box. Same outfit. Grey sweatshirt, camo hunting jacket, blue surgical mask.

J-P Seymour says there had been a request from media to audio record the proceedings (but not for broadcast) in place of handwritten notes. Crown has no objection; neither does defence counsel Cal Rosemond. So ordered.

Discussion about new exhibit submitted by company that would provide electronic ankle-bracelet monitoring, attesting that the address proposed for King to live is covered.

Crown Moiz Karimjee has brought an application to re-open the bail hearing, filed yesterday. Hmmm. Surprise twist.

Karimjee citing case law on re-opening the case after submissions. [Apparently, to quote The Dude, "new s*** has come to light, man."]

Karimjee says on Sept 4, 2016, Pat King was charged in Alberta with uttering threats, and was required to surrender a rifle to police as condition of release, which he did, but two days later bought a restricted firearm, a handgun.

Karimjee likens this to someone charged with drunk driving surrendering his car then going out to buy a tank.

Karimjee says an Alberta police corporal involved in this case reached out to him after seeing media coverage, but only after the last hearing wrapped. So that's why it wasn't presented previously.

But, wait, there's more. On March 9, 2017, an utter threat charge in Alberta was resolved with a peace bond on condition King didn't posses weapons. But he didn't surrender the hand gun, Karimjee says. "Significantly relevant for the court" in this case.

Karimijee says. in Feb. 2021, King's firearms licence was revoked, and therefore he has been in possession of a restricted firearm, a hand gun, since then. He cites the "this is all going to end with bullets" video.

Karimjee says it would be unfair to the court if this evidence isn't considered in the bail application. "Your Worship is entitled to hear all relevant evidence."

Karimjee says J. Seymour can ensure this is a fair hearing for King, recommends defence be given a chance to recall the surety, let King take the stand or present other evidence responding to the firearm issue.

Karimjee allows re-opening the hearing would be unusual, says Crown has never done this before (although his case law shows it being allowed in a judge-and-jury trial, in R. v. Sylvester.)

Defence counsel Cal Rosemond raising an issue of delay, also says case law Crown cited isn't relevant, says they had ample opportunity to prepare for the bail hearing. "The had all the king's horses and all the king's men" working on it, no pun apparently intended.

Rosemond says re-opening the case would "open the floodgates" and let anyone bring more evidence at some later date, suggests this will keep his client in custody longer.

Rosemond suggests Crown drop the ball, should have foreseen the gun evidence, as it was a Calgary case and King lived in Alberta. It's not something that couldn't have been anticipated, it's not outside the bounds of "human ingenuity" as the case law describes it.

"We have an innocent person in custody," Rosemond says, makes proceeding expeditiously more important and, he reiterates, it's the Crown's fault -- "state negligence" -- the gun evidence wasn't filed earlier. "This evidence couldn't have come later in the game."

To recap: The Crown says, inter alia, Pat King has a gun he shouldn't, wants to re-open bail hearing; the defence says, if so, the Crown blew it and King shouldn't have to stay in jail longer because of their negligence.

Rosemond says if we are going to go through this exercise, the surety will have be recalled and King will have to likely spend another weekend in jail. Says he could accommodate a no-weapons condition, which are common, if not in mischief cases.

Rosemond says if Crown thought King was going to act on his "end-in-bullets" remark, they should have checked his firearms record. Says he doesn't know what the Crown was thinking.

Rosemond says there should not be forgiveness for Crown not doing their due diligence. Cites case of R. v. McGregor (no relation, AFAIK).

The value of this potential evidence is "extremely low," Rosemond says, as this is not a firearms case. "This amounts to a no-weapons condition and maybe an extra caution to the surety... She will be well-aware of this."

Rosemond says the new potential evidence is double hearsay and maybe triple hearsay. (But allows hearsay evidence is permissible in a bail hearing.). "It is of very little weight or consequence."

He notes RCMP records are nation-wide. "I'm not sure why my friend (the crown) missed this but it's completely the Crown's fault."

Rosemond repeating point made in his submissions that King is unlikely serve jail time longer than he already has spent in custody if he pleaded guilty tomorrow. Notes even some multiple murderers don't get consecutive sentences, even more unlikely w/ mischief.

Rosemond wraps his submissions, turns it back over to Karimjee, who again notes Pat King keeps letting his mask slip below his nose. JP Seymour says he didn't see this but reminds King wear it properly.

Karimjee looping back to rebut some of the defence's jurisprudence on re-opening a case. I'll spare you.

Karimjee says he learned of the new evidence just before 7 pm on Feb. 22. Pushes back on hearsay issue, says there is a signed statement from a police office and two affidavits -- it's trustworthy evidence.

"Your Worship is tasked with a significant task... whether King is at risk of re-offending," Karimjee concludes.

Justice of the Peace Andrew Seymour says he needs time to consider the application to re-open but still wants to give a decision on bail today. Notes this is novel area. Suggests coming back at 1 pm but won't rule on bail then. May need to hear from surety again.

And court is recessed until 1 pm. See back here then.