The lawyers for Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou on Wednesday wrapped up their arguments for requesting more information surrounding the executive’s Vancouver arrest.
In the closing moments of Tuesday’s proceedings, Crown prosecutors suggested they are unlikely to respond in court until the hearings resume next week.
Prosecutors also expressed some frustration with Meng’s requests for more documents, saying in court that the ministry of justice has “given, given and given” ample documentation surround the arrest - and is unsure “what is left” to provide additionally.
The prosecution, in previous submissions, also contended that the Customs Act required someone like Meng to undergo a border inspection prior to the police having the ability to access her, complicating the serving of the arrest warrant.
Defence lawyer Scott Fenton on Wednesday disputed those claims, saying that the Customs Act requirement is for someone like Meng to present themselves – but not for an inspection. Fenton also said border agents – in their role as peace officers – “are fully capable of immediately executing the warrant.”
For the first time since current proceedings started on Monday, Justice Heather Holmes questioned Meng’s defence and some of its claims in court. Holmes asked Fenton that, - if it appears that the decision to change plans surrounding Meng’s arrest came from higher level RCMP or CBSA officials, would information from the officers who only handled the arrest be of any actual consequence in the case?
Fenton responded that - ultimately - the arresting officers had the ability to execute the arrest warrant in a timely manner, and the fact that Meng had to wait three hours before being arrested after being detained means that defence lawyers want the information to shed light in exactly what happened.
Fenton also attacked the CBSA’s note-taking process, noting that regulations for detailed notes that would be ready for potential admission in court were not met by Meng’s arresting officers. Among the chief complaints is the defence’s contention that CBSA officers made no mentions of the arrest warrant despite the “high level of coordination that took place.”
“There’s strong evidence that Ms. Meng was tricked,” Fenton said. “She was unlawfully deprived of her constitutional rights that she could have exercised had the officers complied with the conditions of the [arrest warrant] court order.”
On Wednesday afternoon, Crown prosecutors had their first extended chance to speak in court, and they said they are “happy” to receive the request for more disclosure around the Meng case – but the defence’s submissions are unlikely to change the Crown’s stance that all relevant information has already been given.
“What you heard is that they [the defence] do not have the documents and notes of all the RCMP and CBSA officers who attended the meeting at 9:30 am on Dec. 1,” the Crown prosecutors said. “They say the notes they have do not speak to that meeting... (But) they already have everything there is to the meeting.”
In previously filed court documents in response to Meng’s team’s request for additional disclosure, the Crown opposed the request in calling the effort a “fishing exercise” without specificity on what exactly the defence is looking for.
The court proceedings will resume Monday.
