Basi-Virk case: Lawyers argue disclosure of evidence nearly five years after legislature raid
You can also find some excellent background and up-to-date news on the Basi-Virk case at Bill Tieleman's blog.
Frustrations flared briefly Monday among the Crown and defence lawyers involved in the Basi-Virk case.
Defence lawyer Kevin McCullough, representing one of three former government aides accused of fraud and corruption, was making a submission to the trial judge, questioning why a federal prosecutor, Paul Riley, was now appearing in court to argue against documents being disclosed to the defence.
McCullough pointed out the defence has been trying to get disclosure of the documents since last spring, when the court didn't "hear a peep" from the lawyer for federal public prosecution service.
The comment prompted special prosecutor Bill Berardino to rise to his feet to complain, saying: "The quick answer to that is 'So what?' "
He added: "Is there anything in Mr. Riley's mandate to prohibit this?"
The judge suggested to Beradino he will be able to explain his position further during the Crown's legal argument, expected later Monday.
At issue at today's hearing is a dispute over 376 documents that have not been disclosed to the defence lawyers because of claims by the Crown of either solicitor-client privilege or litigation privilege.