A Canadian judge ruled that Meng Wanzhou’s lawyer can apply to terminate the extradition process based on "significant omission of evidence"
According to CCTV News, on the evening of the 29th local time, at the Vancouver, British Columbia Higher Education Institution Court Judge Heather Holmes ruled to dismiss Meng Wanzhou's case. "Ruling rejecting the application of prosecutors' lawyers in Meng Wanzhou's extradition case." This ruling means that the judge believes that there may be "intentional omission of evidence" or "significant omission of evidence" in the "case records" provided by the United States, which can be used as a reason to terminate Meng Wanzhou's application for extradition.
The ruling held that Ms. Meng’s claims, whether for a stay of proceedings or for confirmation of evidence deleted from the “case record,” were based on separate consideration of each branch and on each branch. comprehensive consideration. It is therefore possible that the third part cannot be established on its own, but may be true when considered together with the first and second parts. Therefore, the judge decided to reject the prosecution lawyer’s request.
Canada Border Services Agency staff admitted that it was illegal to pass on mobile phone passwords
According to previous reports from China News Service, on October 26, local time, Meng Wanzhou was in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada ( Also known as British Columbia) Superior Court, he appeared again for an extradition hearing. In this round of hearings, the prosecution and defense will cross-examine witnesses on whether there was procedural abuse by Canadian law enforcement agencies during the detention of Meng Wanzhou.
The defense believes that on December 1, 2018, two hours before Meng Wanzhou's flight to Vancouver took off, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Border Services Agency changed the original plan to "immediately arrest" Meng Wanzhou. Zhou's plan to use special immigration inspection powers to seize Meng Wanzhou's electronic devices and illegally "interrogate" Meng Wanzhou without informing her of her rights under the Charter and without a lawyer. The defense argued that law enforcement officers illegally "interrogated" Meng without informing her of her Charter rights and without a lawyer present. The defense believes that law enforcement officials disguised criminal investigations of illegal evidence collection as routine customs inspections in order to help the United States illegally collect evidence against Huawei without the presence of lawyers.
According to CCTV News, on the 27th local time, Meng Wanzhou’s lawyer once again questioned Canadian Federal Police (RCMP, Royal Canadian Mounted Police) Constable Winston Yep. Compared with the 26th, the police officer's process of answering the defense lawyer's questions that day was significantly longer, and he seemed to "think twice before answering" every question, and his tone was lower than the previous day. Although he carefully chose his answers, during follow-up questioning he was forced to admit outright that he had obtained a bench warrant from a judge with an erroneous affidavit.
In addition, Canada Border Services Agency employee Scott Kirkland was questioned by the prosecution lawyer ten minutes before the end of the trial that afternoon.
A noteworthy issue is that Scott asked Meng Wanzhou to hand over her mobile phone password, and wrote the password not only in his notebook, but also on a note. His explanation is that this is his work habit and is usually done to remind the holder to change the password when returning the passport. However, the note with the password was later handed over to federal police. Under relevant regulations, the Border Services Agency cannot hand over information obtained from arrivals to the police.
In his response, Scott acknowledged that this was a mistake and violated privacy laws. But he denied he knowingly gave the information to police.
Expand all