Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

UPDATED: Meng Wanzhou trial resumes; Crown counsel argues arrest was ‘not at all sinister’

Crown prosecutors in the Meng Wanzhou extradition case will make their arguments against providing additional information involving the Huawei executive’s arrest in Vancouver last December.
mengwanzhou-albertvansantvoort2
Meng Wanzhou leaves the BC Supreme Court building September 30, 2019 | Photo: Albert Van Santvoort

Crown prosecutors in the Meng Wanzhou extradition case will make their arguments against providing additional information involving the Huawei executive’s arrest in Vancouver last December.

Meng’s legal team last week said in court that Canadian authorities defied a court order to immediately arrest the Huawei CFO upon her arrival in Vancouver, detaining her for hours while evidence was collected under the pretences of a border entry check. 

Defence counsel also alleged that the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) and RCMP conspired with U.S. authorities to conduct a cover criminal investigation where Meng’s charter rights were violated.

On Monday morning, Crown counsel vigorously rebuked those claims, arguing the arrest procedure at the airport was “not at all sinister.” 

“There are three pillars to their argument,” Crown counsel stated in court Monday. “That the CBSA ignited an order to immediately arrest Ms Meng, that [authorities] conspired to conduct a covert criminal investigation, and there was an attempt to cover it up... But it is our stance that [the officers] carried out the process in accordance with their legal obligations, and there was no conspiracy.  

“If there is no conspiracy, there’s nothing to cover up.”

The Crown said the border admission process was not used improperly to acquire Meng’s information, adding that “it is logical to delay an arrest until someone is admitted into the country.”

“Our point is that ‘immediately’ does not mean it does not take into consideration the other circumstances that may exist, such as the process of letting someone into the country,” the Crown told the court this morning, adding there are past cases where literal executions of arrest warrants were deemed too stringent by the court.

The Crown also opposed Meng’s defence in its charactization of a key meeting at 9:30am on Dec. 1, 2018 – the day of Meng’s arrest – as a conspiracy to cover up a change in the procedure to arrest Meng, thus indicating Canadian authorities’ abuse of the border entry process in a criminal investigation.

“You cannot get to an air of reality from nothing, and that’s what they have,” Crown prosecutors said. “It is their position that the CBSA officers at that meeting didn’t take notes, but the both RCMP officers at the meeting did... So if this was a cover-up, it would be a total failure because the officers’ notes clearly stated they were at this meeting.”

Justice Heather Holmes showed concern over the Crown’s argument that the border entry process needed to take precedent over the arrest warrant, despite the Crown saying very little;  two statements  – including one about Huawei not selling products in the U.S. and having an office in Iran – were gathered from Meng during the border check.

“What is the immigration purpose of asking someone if their company sold products in the U.S.?” Holmes asked, noting whether abuse of process should consider the actual result of the abuse or the original intent as the key consideration.

Crown prosecutors maintain that the interview with Meng was proper since “the point is to determine whether someone is to be admitted into the country” and that officers are “entitled to ask about possible criminality or national security issues.

Crown prosecutors also stated they have “bent” to the defence’s will in proactively providing relevant facts that “speak to the pillars of their case.” The fact that existing documents do not show conspiracy shows the “weakness” of the defence’s claims, the Crown argued.

“They’ve established an air of reality of people having a discussion,” Crown prosecutors say. “What they haven’t proven is an air of reality that a discussion took place that would have violated Ms. Meng’s rights.”

In the afternoon, Crown prosecutors listed a number of previous decisions where immigration border checks took precedent over criminal matters. Crown prosecutors told the court that border agents had the duty of enforcing secondary checks – as Meng was subjected to – "in a broader context.”

“It’s difficult to see what happened here as a disguised investigation,” the Crown argued. “I can see a clear and legitimate purpose, therefore there cannot be a disguised ulterior motive.”

The Crown said the duties – as outlined in border regulations – included foreign criminality provisions that must be acted upon “in the public’s interest.”

The Crown added that a border entry check that Meng underwent could result in the visitor being rejected, approved for entry as a temporary resident or approved for admission for further investigation.

“The third case was what happened here,” the Crown said, adding that the outcome highlights the need for a border check prior to arrest. “The point is that none of these outcomes can be predetermined. How can an officer know how things would unfold without conducting their assessment?”

Also in contention Monday was whether or not CBSA agents are allowed to serve arrest warrants, as Meng’s defence argued is the case. However, Crown counsel pointed to the Customs Act and border control regulations that said while agents are fully within their rights to look at and seize cellphones and laptops, serving arrest warrants is clearly stated as out of bounds.

“The defence places a lot of weight on the word ‘immediately,’” Crown counsel said. “To that we say... [the border regulations] all have language of immediacy that’s equal to the [arrest warrant]. One of these processes has to go first, and common sense says that the determination of a person’s admissibility to Canada should take place first.”

Justice Holmes, however, pressed the Crown on whether all three outcomes would result in Meng being served with her arrest warrant – or whether the CBSA had the option of rejecting Meng’s entry to Canada and sending her back to Hong Kong.

Crown prosecutors said that outcome – while it happens regularly to other passengers – was not a realistic outcome in Meng’s case.

The hearing will resume on Tuesday.