Day 32: Crown alleges ‘conspiracy’ between Tamara Lich and Chris Barber in ‘unlawful protest’

Is there an onus a burden upon the defense of the prosecution to determine lawfulness of this demonstration the context of this Carter application the the burden is always on the pr prosecution to to prove that a criminal offense was was committed the everybody is whose charge is presumed

Presumed they’ve done nothing wrong and it’s it’s for the crown to show otherwise throughout so I mean that that this at this at this stage uh they simply have to point to some evidence that there was an agreement to engage in some sort of unlawful activity but but the onus is still

Theirs we lawful until it’s not an assembly is lawful until it’s becomes unlawful and that’s um indicated in the criminal code Robert kek reporting for Rebel news here in Otto Ontario at the conclusion of day 32 of the trial of Tamara leech in Chris Barber the two defendants are

Being charged with the series of crimes related to their roles as organizers of the freedom Convoy of 2022 uh peaceful demonstration here in downtown Ottawa in opposition to what I always refer to as the co9 Enterprise government issued decrees edicts mandates lockdowns ostensibly to address Public Health in the context of

Covid-19 the day’s proceedings were primarily consumed with this ongoing dispute over a Carter application which was explained in previous videos please check our reports from earlier this week to get that explained although I will review that again today and we were also fortunate enough to briefly speak with Diane Magus lawyer

For Chris Barber and Eric Granger Council for Tamara leech about some of what happened today also Adam from the Democracy fund will share some legal insights with us but before we get to that I want to remind you folks that we’re not beholden to the federal government and we depend on our

Viewers financial support to continue these in the- field reports so please help us out at tamat trial.com and stay up todate with our ongoing reports one of the primary bones of contention between the prosecution and defense teams in the context of this broader dispute over this Carter application is

Whether or not the freedom Convoy was a lawful protest the crown is contending that the freedom Convoy was an unlawful demonstration and if it’s able to persuade the judge that the freedom Convoy was unlawful then both Tamara leech and Chris Barber as organizers of this protest can be characterized as

Co-conspirators furthering a criminal act and of course the defense is taking the opposite position stating that the freedom Convoy is broadly a law awul protest and Al also not even a uniform or homogeneous protest moreover the defense has already acknowledged an admission submitted I think at the beginning of this trial

That there were certain people at certain times in the context of the freedom Convoy that had committed Mischief that it committed intimidation that it committed obstruction of police but that this was not done by the defendants and was not done at the behest of or due to counseling from the defendants

Now in order to resolve this dispute over whether or not the demonstration and protest is to be determined lawful or unlawful the prosecution said yesterday during the 31st day of the trial that the defense teams should submit applications to the judge to convince her to persuade her to have her

Determine the lawfulness of the protests at that moment it jumped out at me that this is an inversion of the presumption of innocence it is not for the defense to prove that what it was involved in or what it did was innocent it is up to the

Crown to determine guilt so if the crown wants to have a preemptive decision made via separate application by the judge over the lawfulness or unlawfulness of this protest it should be done by the prosecution itself in other words the crown should submit an application of its own to persuade the

Judge judge and make a ruling or determination over the lawfulness or unlawfulness of this protest so what is a Carter application I’m glad you asked as I will explain it a Carter application is an attempt to Pursuit a submission by the crown to apply a framework of conspiracy to the

Trial so if a card application is accepted by a judge or jury depending on the type of trial it allows for the attribute tion of incriminating evidence against one defendant to be applied to another it assumes that any crime that is deemed to have been committed by one defendant was committed towards the

Pursuit the furtherance of some endpoint crime some conspiracy or agreement between the defendants is interpreted as a backdrop against which all of this analysis takes place now why is this interesting or important or relevant in the context of this trial of Tamara leech and Chris Barber it’s because Tamara leech’s name

Has come up so infrequently so rarely in the context of the evidence presented by the crown both in the form of witnesses and videos I can count probably on one hand how many times I’ve heard Tamar Le’s name come up in the evidence presented by the crown at one point

Tamar leech even sort of joked to me that this trial is turning into the Chris Barber show further none of the witnesses who were invited by the crown to testify had any dealings with Tamara leech in the context of the freedom Convoy so given this background of the Rarity and

Infrequency of Tamara leech’s featuring in the evidence presented by the crown the crown must have this Carter application accepted by the judge in order to rope her in with evidence that it argues that it views and interprets as incriminating against Chris Barber if they are unsuccessful in persuading the judge to accept this

Carter application it will be very difficult to have anything meaningful applied to Tamaro leech so Eric the timing of the resolution of this Carter application dispute not to be specific or have you divulge anything in terms of your defense strategy but in a general sense does it affect the way a defense

Proceeds with its strategy if it’s resolved now as opposed to at the end of the trial which you said earlier was more typical oh absolutely the whole point of trying to argue this now is is this is evidence the crown seeks to use against our client and if it gets

Resolved in our favor now then that’s evidence we don’t need to worry about going forward we don’t need to consider going forward in any event uh if it’s resolved not in our favor then we know okay that’s evidence the crown can use at the end of the case and and we’ll

Have to deal with it accordingly so we have Diane Magus defense attorney for Chris bar now di you were making this distinction towards the end of proceedings you were um recalling what was a previous judgment right bof I think it was it’s like French surname and you were stating that a protest is

Peaceful until it’s not well lawful until it’s not an assembly is lawful until it’s becomes unlawful and that’s um indicated in the code okay so as far as a a peaceful demonst ation versus an unlawful demonstration I guess this distinction shouldn’t be made because they’re not synonymous to begin with right like

Peaceful and lawful are not necessarily one the same that’s correct and but you need at least a peaceful demonstration to be able to be lawful right but there’s other reason why a demonstration could become unlawful for example if there’s laws that are broken other than peaceful right like if for example there’s

Criminal code offenses property damage Mischief uh and so on it may not be violent but it may still be unlawful because certain section of the code were broken for example so I’m here with Adam from the Democracy fund now Adam we’re going to talk about a couple of arguments made by the prosecution

That are being challenged by Eric Granger defense attorney for tar leech in the context of this cter obligation so the first one was this argument over the hom the alleged homogeneity of the freedom Convoy why don’t you tell us why that was interesting and what Granger’s

Saying back to that sure so the crown wants to show that the protest was uh single singular and uh ubiquitous there was a Unity there that uh Barber had large a large amount of control over uh the people at the at the protest uh what what Granger uh is contending in his

Submissions is that and what the evidence has has shown and I think Perkins McVey is live to this as well based on her comments is that there were multiple uh different protesters there for multiple different reasons and barber uh did not have control over all

Of these uh all of the people there and why is this important as it relates to the Carter application well Carter application needs to show a common unlawful design a common unlawful agreement um that leech and barber engaged in this is what the crown needs to establish for this Carter application

It makes it difficult for them to make that argument uh if there were numerous people in uh in Ottawa for numerous different reasons it it it it certainly uh puts the crown on a on a on on a back foot uh when they when they approach

That issue I’m here with Brian dudy it’s a fantastic Name by the way and Brian is with the jccf the outside Council okay and basically you’ve been in for proceedings for a couple of days and we were speaking earlier about speculating on costs and dedication of resources for this trial

Of tar Le and Chris Barber maybe you can share with our audience some things that you were contemplating when we had that discussion well um when trial dates are set um council is asked to try and estimate the the number of days that a trial will be um I think this trial is

Now in day 32 two and that’s way beyond what the original trial estimate was so there are I think it’s I each additional date of trial in incurs additional costs sure um to run a courtroom for a day you need to have uh two clerks and a presiding

Judge um and in the case of uh Barbera and leech there are uh two full-time Crown prosecutors and five uh lawyers for the defendants and uh so just in terms of multiplying that you know by 32 uh you know you’re you’re getting into some serious you know Court

Resources that are being set aside to deal with this one trial so at 32 days I would say that’s that’s a that’s a it’s a very lengthy trial now there’s something I want to ask to an megas but I’ll ask you because it’s actually occurring to me at the moment it’s sort

Of the distinction between if there is one peaceful versus lawful so that was something that was maintained by both Radcliffe and Wester yesterday um is that accurate I mean is a peaceful demonstration by definition lawful or there circumstances where that’s not the case I mean that’s a very good question

Other than to say that obviously peace peaceful and lawful are two different words U certainly when one thinks of such a thing as a peaceful demonstration one thinks there something that’s likely going on lawfully but could could could one in the infinite permutations and combinations out there come up with a

Way that you could be peaceful but uh somehow otherwise breaking the law I I wouldn’t foreclose that possibility I mean peaceful is not synonymous with lawful but uh certainly as we heard in the evidence in this case uh peaceful and lawful what we’re oftenly often or at times used used together is to

Describe the nature of what was happening I guess with respect to the the comments that Perkins McVey also made in the submissions of Granger um as well as the crown this commonality of purpose right so the crown is saying that you know perhaps there were different factions but they still had an

Underlying commonality of purpose they were there for largely speaking the same reasons um Granger’s position and defense’s position to that point is that that’s fine people can be here for the same reason but also not be part of of the same group right and and this is

Where uh he’s he’s again that that sort of detracts from the Crown’s position which is that you know uh Mr Barber had a lot of control or complete control over this Convoy there’s a procedure that leads to the trial that is supposed to ensure that defense counsel and the

Crown have a dialogue uh and a there’s a Judicial pre-trial held which is between the defense Council and the crown counsil in front of a judge uh to determine the estimated number of days required so I’m just saying in terms of this particular case um where we’re at

Right now has gone Way Beyond the initial estimate so um and that has an effect on court resources available when when one courtroom is being used for 32 days uh it can’t be used for for other matters right now as far as the owners the is there an onus a burden upon the

Defense of the prosecution to determine lawfulness of the St ation the context of this Carter application the the burden is always on the pr prosecution to to prove that a criminal offense was was committed everybody is whose charge is presumed presumed they’ve done nothing wrong and it’s it’s for the crown to show

Otherwise throughout uh so I mean at this at this at this stage uh they simply have to point to some evidence that there was an agreement to uh engage in some sort of un unlawful activity but but the onus is still theirs why don’t you tell our audience what Granger was

Arguing uh in this regard with respect to the Carter application today sure so the crown um in their submissions uh was suggesting that they they wanted defense to bring an an a charter application um essentially showing that the protest at large was lawful right um Granger in his

Submissions today said well that’s not our job our job is not here to show that the protest was lawful that’s a reverse onus that’s putting us in the position of saying okay our you know our our our clients act acted lawfully the onus remains squarely on the crown to show

That the behavior um of the accused was unlawful and so this is this is where that back and forth stem from in your experience as a lawyer now for at least a couple of years would you say that the average wait time for a trial has been

Upped over time the reason I ask is because in general there’s this degradation of so-called Public Services it’s harder to get a doctor for example in Ottawa than ever before weight times for all sorts of medical services are upping and upping and upping over the years and I’m wondering if that sort of

Degradation of access to service is something that’s also being noticed in the context of the judicial system does it take longer to get a court longer to get a judge longer to get trials completed than it was let’s say in years prior that is uh an interesting question

I believe in the process of having a dialogue between the crown and the crown lawyer and the defense lawyer having a real dialogue about how long the trial is going to take what disclosure is going to be provided um and when there is that dialogue between the defense and

The crown I think you can have a you can have go before the judicial pre-trial judge and you can figure out together an estimate that’s realistic I guess my concern is that you know I think we’re in a situation um you know where you know obviously I think the the original

Estimates were were were not were not accurate this trial will resume next Thursday December 7th for one day of proceedings and at that point presumably they will set out future dates so we sort of expect that to be somewhere in January based on what the judge has said

Today about her availability and also from the prosecution and defense so stay tuned for more reports dear Rebel news audience we need your financial support to continue producing these in the- field reports this unique journalism that can’t be done anywhere else so please visit tamarat trial.com to contribute to our

Operational costs and stay upto-date with our ongoing reports

| Sign up for updates on every stage of Tamara Lich’s trial

The Crown and defence team continued their dispute over the prosecution’s Carter application on the thirty-second day of the Chris Barber and Tamara Lich trial on Friday in Ottawa, ON. A Carter application, if accepted by the judge, would allow for incriminating evidence against one defendant to be applied to the other, too. An accepted Carter application applies a framework of conspiracy to the defendants, and accepts a claim by the Crown that both defendants entered into a conspiracy or agreement to commit criminal acts.

Visit Rebel News for more on this story ?

Rebel News: Telling the other side of the story. for more great Rebel content.

Unlike almost all of our mainstream media competitors, Rebel News doesn’t receive any government funding. We rely on our generous audience to help keep us reporting. Please consider supporting Rebel News by making a donation, purchasing a RebelNews+ subscription, shopping in our online store, or any of the other methods below:

?Support our independent journalism –
?We accept cryptocurrency! –
?Rebel News Plus – Become a Premium Content subscriber –
?BUY Rebel News gear –
?LISTEN to our FREE podcast –

Make sure to follow Rebel News on social media too!
FACEBOOK –
TWITTER –
INSTAGRAM –
RUMBLE –

Follow all of our YouTube channels here:
Rebel News Canada –
Rebel News Australia –
Rebel News USA –
Rebel News UK –
Rebel News Québec –
Ezra Levant –

An original video production by Rebel News.

#RebelNews #canada #tamaralich

Reference