“Secret Trials - Who are we protecting? What are we afraid of?”

Script for a Tableau (playlet) - performed by five people plus narrator at Toronto Good Friday Stations of the Cross for Social Justice - before an audience of 300 people. (Some photos posted on Murray Lumley's Facebook page)

Narrator:

You are attending a court scene where a detainee – in Orange Jumpsuit - an Arab refugee or immigrant, who might be from Egypt, Algeria or Syria and is a resident of Canada, has been arrested by Canadian Security and Intelligence Services or CSIS and is being held under the supervision of Canadian Border Services Agency or CBSA. He is not charged with any crime, but is held on the possiblity that he might be a danger to Canadian national security – meaning he is believed to be a terrorist or have had terrorist connections in the country he came from or has visited - until such time as he can be deported back to where he came from. There have been five such Detainees, since the mid-nineties, all Muslim men.

Because he is charged with no crime in Canada by which he could be legally incarcerated, he is being held using an Immigration instrument called a Security Certificate. CSIS has presented its case in a brief document to the government of Canada, and two Ministers – the Minister of Immigration and the Minister of Public Safety have signed the Security Certificate, which allows CBSA to keep the Detainee in secure custody until such time as he can be deported. The allegations that CSIS has against the Detainee are of a lower quality than would stand up in a normal court of law – meaning testimony of a secret witness or informer, hearsay, news articles and circumstancial evidence - for example the detainee was found to possess a map of Ottawa with some buildings or routes marked. This evidence is kept secret on the basis of National Security and only certain official people are allowed to see it - as you will see in our brief scene.

In the early 2000’s the Detainee and the others were kept in a Provincial jail – Metro West here in Toronto, which is designed for inmates convicted of crimes committed in Ontario and on sentences of two years less a day. Since the Detainees had committed no crime they could not be mixed with the prison population and were therefore kept in Solitary Confinement, often in cells that were cold and for which the jailers would do nothing to correct. This and other indignities caused the detainees to go on several hunger strikes which forced the courts at the instigation of the lawyers appointed to represent the Detainees, to order better conditions. Eventually the Canadian government built a $multi-million ‘Kingston Immigration Holding Centre’ – KIHC - located as a separate entity with its own guards at Millhaven Correctional Institution at Bath, Ontario.

The Detainees who have moved back and forth from complete incarceration to house arrest, where all of them are now, have never been deported because Canada has signed onto an international agreement to not send an immigrant or refugee back to their home country if there is a reaonable possibility that they will be tortured or killed. Federal Court Judges have upheld this decision and so the Detainees have been kept in either complete custody or house arrest with severely restrictive conditions on movement and communication with others. Court hearings seem unending. Under Canadian Immigration law the Detainees have the right to at least two kinds of hearings – 1. Reasonableness of the Security Certificate Hearings one of which is presently in its third year and 2. Detention Review every six months – which means that some of the strict conditions on travel and communication can be lifted if the Detainee has been of good, reliable behaviour. 3. Other kinds of hearings such as one where CSIS has been accused and admitted to listening in on Lawyer-Client telephone conversations.

In 2007 the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the Security Certificate legislation at the same time as one of the Detainees from Montreal had his Security Certificate quashed and became a free man. The Court gave the government one year to rewrite the legislation to make it more fair. The legislation of 2008 is almost the same but with the addition of the appointment of ‘special advocate lawyers’ who are allowed to see the ‘Secret Evidence’ but cannot communicate this to the Detainee or his lawyer. Their role is to represent the detainees interests in the secret trials. They are allowed to meet and talk with the detainee and his lawyer only before they see the secret documents, and not again after that.

There are two kind of hearings – public ones where a public summary of the allegations is provided to the detainee and his lawyers, and secret ones where only certain people get to see the ‘Secret Evidence’ but neither the Detainee nor his lawyer.

Let me introduce you to the characters:

1. person holding secret evidence box takes his/her place near ‘Secret Evidence Box’

2. the Detainee (who is at side of stage looking sad and confused)

3. the Judge has access to all of the information both secret and public and it is his or her responsibility to determine, through the course of the reasonableness hearing, to determine whether or not the detainee poses a danger to Canadian national security.

(walks across the front to the secret evidence box and looks inside while Narrator is reading and stays by the box)

4. the Government lawyer(s), who represent the interests of both the CBSA and CSIS also have access to all of the information available and are able to argue their case against the detainee in both open and secret trials. (walks across the front to the secret evidence box and looks inside while Narrator is reading and stays by the box)

5. the Special Advocate, the only person representing the interests of the detainee in the secret trials, may see all of the secret information and question the accuracy and sources of information and argue on behalf of the detainee. (walks across the front to the secret evidence box and looks inside while Narrator is reading, after looking in the box mimes asking questions of the government lawyer before the judge)

(two characters – Government lawyer, Special Advocate - depart the stage)

6. the Detainee’s lawyer and the Detainee receive a publicly authorized summary of the allegations which is the main document they are fighting against in the public hearings. They may never know the full case that the government lawyers have prepared and must present evidence and argue their case to the best of their efforts. The ‘Reasonableness Hearing’ is not about guilt or innocence of the detainee, but rather whether or not it is reasonable to detain - in jail or under strict house arrest – indefinitely, based on allegations that cannot be proven and without enough evidence to press charges under Canada's existing anti-terrorism laws.

(detainee and his lawyer walk across to the secret evidence box and are not allowed to look in the box but are given or take the redacted document - lawyer shows it to the audience revealing blacked out lines; they look at each other and sadly walk off stage)

Today, two detainees, Adil Charkaoui and Hassan Almrei are free men. Federal court judges found the security certificates against them to be unreasonable. Mohammed Harkat has had his certificate upheld earlier this year and remains under house arrest as an appeal is underway. Mahmoud Jaballah and Mohammed Mahjoub are currently in the midst of their reasonableness hearings and are awaiting a final decision.

Mahjoub Hearing – 'Disclosure' - Monday, April 11, 2011

Hi all:

Well, this was supposed to be the resumption of the ‘Reasonableness of the Security Certificate Hearing’ but it wasn’t. Four friends of Mohammad Mahjoub attended, some arriving for the 9:30 am start, but what was observed was that Public Counsel (M.’s lawyers) had sent a letter written Thursday, April 7 to the court asking for further disclosure of a wider range of documents than had been previously requested, including transcripts of RCMP interviews of M. going back to 2001 when he was held at Metro West, Toronto, as well as not limited to CSIS but including Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC), and CBSA recordings and transcripts both pre and post 2008. P. C. also asked for an adjournment of the Reasonableness Hearings until this lack of disclosure was set right. The court went ‘in camera’ from about 9:30 am until 10:45 am.

Court resumed public session at 10:45 am with Judge Blanchard hearing brief back and forth arguments from Public Counsel Yavar Hameed and Ministers’ Counsel Mr. Tyndale as to the need for the disclosure of the documents asked for by P.C. Mr. Tyndale argued that there has been no evidence for the need for further disclosure while Mr. Hameed argued that “before the closing of Mr. Mahjoub’s case there is a need to see all the evidence that has been presented against Mr. Mahjoub”. In the best zinger of the morning, Mr. Tyndale said - “on non-issues, the evidence may be inadmissible and we may as well all go home.” The four of us interpreted that to mean that in that possibility, the case against Mr. Mahjoub would be over and we had to restrain ourselves from cheering.

Judge Blanchard with the support of M.C. Mr. Tyndale lectured P.C. Mr. Hameed about why P.C. had not asked for these disclosures previously even as recently as the one day hearing presided over by Judge Noel. Mr. Hameed’s reply was that he had done so “in a general way”, if not specifically. There was further technical legal discussion regarding “grounds and warrants” and the “timing of this request”.

Judge Blanchard set some parameters and dates for production of materials and resumption of the Reasonableness Hearing, with Tuesday May 24 being the date set for resumption.

Judge Blanchard said he wanted no further delays to this hearing which he said, “is now in its third year.”

This hearing was adjourned around 12 pm with the next date tentatively set for Tuesday, May 24.

I found out after the hearing that the problem with the lack of disclosure was that these wide disclosures had not been asked for by M.’s previous lawyers. I don’t have the legal background to know why that was the case or whether it is a good or bad thing for M.’s case.

Next Hearing – tentatively Tuesday, May 24, 2011, Federal Court, 180 Queen St., W., Toronto

Mahjoub Hearing – Thursday, March 31, 2011; Next Hearing Monday, April 11, 2011

Hi all:

Solicitor Client Privilege – Abusive Process Motion. There were four of us at this hearing on a Motion by Mohammad Mahjoub to have all telephone recordings of Mr. Mahjoub made by CSIS since 1996 be disclosed, or the derivatives (meaning written reports made from the recordings) be disclosed to the court. The hearing which lasted from 9:30 am to about 1 pm consisted of arguments for disclosure, by public Counsel Yavar Hameed and Paul Slansky and against disclosure by Ministers’ Counsel Mr. Tyndale, of some of these records or derivatives, and not others, some of which Ministers’ Counsel said have been destroyed by CSIS. The reason for Mr. Mahjoub’s request is the admission by CSIS witnesses on more than one occasion that solicitor-client privilege had been violated by CSIS recording those calls, even after there was a court order in 2008 for CSIS to stop recording solicitor-client calls. This was described by Public Counsel as an ‘abuse of process’. Judge Noel presided in today’s hearing. Some case law was brought up including ‘Charkaoui 2’ and the ‘Stinchcomb case’ as well as Section 8 wiretap application and Section 21 – CSIS Acts regarding warrants.

There was discussion of the "derivative materials" – written reports from recordings which were not ordered to be disclosed which left Mahjoub in a Catch-22 situation, since he would not have a record of the missing calls. The action of CBSA and CSIS was by implication not in good faith, since they knew perfectly well they were not supposed to be listening in in the first place, and they were acting in contempt of a court order. Even Ministers’ Counsel Tyndale who seemed a bit embarrassed by the position he was being expected to defend, said something about the world being imperfect and in response to a question from Judge Noel replied that “I may later have to apologize”. Mr. Tyndale argued that it was not necessary for the government to comply with Mr. Mahjoub’s request for all the records for no specific reason; that Mr. Mahjoub is required to “point to some argument he wants to advance”. He also said that his clients had disclosed “to the best of their knowledge” to which P. C. Paul Slansky replied later, was not good enough and that the government needed to ‘respond with evidence’. “This was not a mere error but was done deliberately – even after the (court) order to stop”. The government should have stopped all this recording, and didn't. P. C. Slansky pointed out in his final reply that even if the solicitor-client recordings were not used, they could still provide a ‘prejudicial effect’ – that the “subconscious knowledge by a witness of conversations may have helped them as witnesses in court”. Mahjoub himself has gone through all the materials, and seen what is missing. In the face of Tyndale's suggesting that it would be too much bother to produce a lot of irrelevant recordings or accounts of them, and should just be asking for specific records, Judge Noel himself asked how Mahjoub could point to a specific phone call he needed a record of when he could not know what would advance his case.

There was agreement that solicitor/client conversations should be sacrosanct in law, and this sanctity had been breached. Something about Section 7 rights being "malleable," and that case law there was hard to interpret. The abuse of process motion is for the future, and evidence for that is still emerging. Mr. Tyndale had another issue which was to be raised immediately in camera, and shared with public counsel and the special advocates. Obligations to disclose change as the process changes, but it seems the "derivative materials” still exist. CSIS and CBSA have disclosed relevant materials "to the best of their knowledge," but it was pointed out that they may not even have disclosed all Mr. Tyndale needed to know. It is up to the judge to assess what is relevant or not, said Tyndale - to which Judge Noel replied, "How can we assess what we don't know?"

Combined report by Brydon Gombay and Murray Lumley – based on what we each thought we heard in court and not from the beginning at 9:30 am.

Court will sit for the resumption of the ‘Reasonableness of the Security Certificate’ hearings which were interrupted by other matters described in previous blogs. This will begin on Monday, April 11, 2011; 9:30 am at Federal Court, 180 Queen St. W., 6^th floor.

Again, it will be good to have a number of interested observers in the courtroom beginning on Monday.