RCMP defend their actions in aborted extradition
Lawyers say pair accused in so-called honour killing wrongly denied right to counsel
RCMP are defending their actions in the aborted extradition to India of two B.C. residents alleged to have been involved in a so-called honour killing.
In September 2017, after the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the extradition of Malkit Kaur Sidhu and Surjit Singh Badesha could proceed, the Mounties were tasked with the job of escorting them out of the country.
Several RCMP officers picked up Sidhu and Badesha, who were alleged to have conspired to murder Sidhu’s daughter Jassi Sidhu in India in June 2000, from the B.C. prisons where they were incarcerated and escorted them to the Vancouver airport.
The accused were then flown to the Pearson International Airport in Toronto and were scheduled to be handed over to Indian police on a flight from Toronto to New Delhi. But, as they were about to board the plane, RCMP received word that lawyers for the accused had got a court in Vancouver to halt the extradition.
Lawyers for Sidhu and Badesha are arguing that there was an abuse of process and claim that the pair were wrongly denied their right to counsel while they were being escorted by RCMP. They are seeking a stay of the federal justice minister’s surrender order.
In an unusual move, several of the officers involved in transporting the prisoners testified at a hearing in front of a three-judge panel of the B.C. Court of Appeal on Monday.
RCMP Insp. Laura Livingstone, whose job was to oversee the police involved in the transfer, testified that there was a need to keep details of the prisoner transportation confidential to ensure the safety of the prisoners, the Mounties escorting them and the public.
Under questioning from federal Crown counsel John Gibb-Carsley, Livingstone told the panel that it was a “very high-profile” case and “very political.”
Livingstone said that in certain circumstances, including when a person is being taken into custody, people have a right to contact a lawyer.
She said the issue of a right to a lawyer was never discussed during meetings prior to the accused being taken to the Vancouver airport.
“I never brought it up in briefings that I was present for because I did not believe that access to counsel pertained to the situation.”
Lawyers for the accused also say that, despite the Supreme Court of Canada ruling, there was an outstanding legal issue to be dealt with that had been filed in July 2017.
Livingstone, however, said that she was unaware of any additional legal proceedings prior to the prisoners being transported. She said she didn’t learn about any legal proceedings until the department of justice notified the RCMP team that they were to stop the extradition.
Under cross-examination by defence lawyer Michael Klein, who is representing Badesha, Livingstone was asked about the need to keep the operation clandestine.
She said that there was a need to keep any police operation covert in order to control the unknown.
“When we’re out in the public environment, it becomes more and more difficult to do. Therefore the risk to the operation, the risk of something going wrong, increases.”
Livingstone said she believed that any requirement to provide the accused with counsel would have “adversely” affected the transportation of the prisoners.
The decision to keep the matter covert was also influenced by the department of justice, which was concerned about leaks in the case, said the Mountie.
Sidhu and Badesha are alleged to have ordered the honour killing of Jassi Sidhu because Jassi had defied her family’s wishes to reject her marriage to Sukhwinder “Mithu” Singh Sidhu, a rickshaw driver. Badesha was Jassi’s uncle.