According to the Completed Court Lists for Monday and Tuesday, this week, Courtroom 54 on Smythe Street will be busy with at least some BC Rail issues at 10:00am, Friday, April 27 - Vancouver Law Courts, Room 54 (room 54 Where are You?).
Amongst those who are following this affair, there has been some debate about whether the BC Rail Trial has actually begun or not. Robin Matthews for one is of the opinion that it hasn't and the very idea that it has is just another part of the ongoing mis-direction and down right obstruction that has characterized this whole operation, since even before the infamous "Raid."
April 18, Courtroom 54. In the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Finally - the trial of Basi, Basi, and Virk - a splash-off from the rotten sale of BC Rail and the odious cancellation of the intended government sale of the Roberts Bank spur line is here. Finally (after years of delay) that trial - announced with fanfare - started on April 18.
Except it didn't.
Basi, Basi, and Virk were nowhere to be seen. The absurdity of the pretence that the trial had begun seemingly escaped almost all the circle of journalists present and working for the Gordon Campbell government. There may be a sicker set of journalists in Canada but if there is, it will be hard to find.
The Grand Opening of the Basi, Basi, and Virk trial was held without Basi, Basi, and Virk, and without the Special Crown Prosecutor, William Berardino. The reason? Because it wasn't the beginning of the trial at all. It was another pre-trial hearing. Perhaps the Supreme Court of British Columbia has mismanaged the whole Basi, Basi, and Virk matter so massively, it decided the trial must pretend to begin. That is entirely possible. It pretended to begin on April 18.
(emphasis - kc)
Bill Tieleman on the other hand, admits that he is confused, that it isn't necessarily that easy to define exactly when a trial, especially in a complex situation like this, actually "officially" begins.
A NOTE: Some media, including 24 hours, are calling today's application the beginning of the trial while other are calling it a "court proceeding". There is some debate as to when exactly a trial begins and so far I've found no definitive answer.
The old Coot here is just glad to see that finally this festering sore is starting to be dealt with on a regular basis, rather than another adjournment or re-scheduling every few months. It must be a nightmare for the Soup Nazi and his Cabinet of Crackers, having to face new allegations every day or two while wondering how long "it's before the courts" will work. They undoubtedly are cognizant that that line won't hunt from the witness stand, and we've seen nothing yet of what they may do to stay out of that particular box.
Technically, I tend to agree with Robin, that the trial hasn't really started yet. It is stuff that has to be dealt with though, so it is good the things happening are happening. But again, technically, according to the Ministry of the AG, all of the current happenings are classified as CNAs and the previous results were IBJ, or ContiNuations of hearings on Applications Initiated by Judge. For further information on today's legal terms click below to go below the fold.
Today's Justin Code Definitions:
Only to be used when a hearing of an accused has been scheduled previously and is adjourned to continue. (Tautology anyone? - kc)
Used when the adjournment is initiated by the adjudicator, i.e. adjourned for lack of court time or to give judgement/sentence/disposition/continuation.