The Duffy trial’s ironic twist
Irony is not dead, at least not inside the Ottawa courtroom where embattled Senator Mike Duffy is on trial, facing allegations of fraud, bribery and breach of trust. As Duffy’s trial crosses the halfway point, all eyes have turned to the testimony of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s former chief of staff Nigel Wright. At the conclusion of Wright’s testimony, novice court watchers may have been left wondering if the prosecution and defence had secretly switched teams.
On Wednesday, Wright — the Crown’s star witness — finished his daily 10 kilometre run and then hailed a taxi for the 100 metre journey from his hotel room to the courthouse. An unusual start to the day, but then Wright’s evidence unfolded much as expected.
Wright had previously provided a detailed statement to RCMP investigators claiming that he cut Duffy the now infamous $90,000 cheque, believing that it was the proper course of action. He claimed that his actions were ethical and borne of a desire protect the taxpayers. The RCMP seemed satisfied with Wright’s explanation and took the unusual step of announcing that Wright would not be charged with a criminal offence.
So it should have come as no surprise that Wright stuck to his story in court and reiterated that his actions were motivated by the purest of intentions. Oh sure, Wright admitted that the Conservative party understood from the earliest days that the Duffy affair could be a politically sensitive issue and could quickly turn into a controversy. Wright’s binder full of emails cast doubt on the independence of Conservative senators. He even acknowledged that there was a political aspect to the repayment and that media lines were developed, with the prime minister’s approval, to mitigate any damage. But on balance, his story was consistent.
Yet Wright went even further with his evidence, testifying that he believed Duffy made a “mistake” and did not act intentionally. It was Wright’s view that nothing fraudulent had occurred. The evidence was pure gold for the defence — there was no conspiracy, no scheme, no bribe and nothing approaching a criminal act.
And then the Crown had no further questions. There may have been some political revelations that could damage the Conservative party, but there was certainly no knockout blow or smoking gun.
You would think that Duffy and his defence team would be happy with Wright’s evidence. Perhaps Duffy’s lawyer, the normally loquacious Don Bayne, may even decline to ask Wright any questions. You would likely be wrong.
But how, you may wonder, could the defence not be grinning after Wright’s evidence? Isn’t bribery all about corruption? How could Duffy be guilty of receiving a bribe, but Wright innocent of paying one? How could money be purely given but corruptly received?
Just as Wright’s evidence was telegraphed through the statements he made to the RCMP, Duffy’s position may have been cast in stone from the moment he began his speech from the floor of the Senate in 2013. In his now infamous 1,750-word polemic, Duffy described Wright’s purported gesture of goodwill as a “monstrous political stunt.” Duffy admitted that he “allowed myself to be intimidated into doing what I knew in my heart was wrong, out of a fear of losing my job and a misguided sense of loyalty.” And he characterized the Wright payment as a coordinated and calculated political scheme cooked up in the prime minister’s office — one that Duffy himself seemed content to go along with. He did after all cash the cheque.
Duffy’s lawyer is skilled in the art of cross-examination. Every indication is that Wright should get comfortable in the witness box. Given Duffy’s public comments, the defence may have little choice but to suggest that, contrary to Wright’s claims, there was indeed a monstrous scheme.
We should expect days of cross-examination about who was involved in the planning, what strings were attached to the money and ultimately allegations of a coordinated coverup. Wright’s 400-page binder of emails will be parsed, word-byword. And Wright will likely be confronted with the suggestion that he is not nearly as altruistic as he claims to be.
If the stakes were not so high, the situation would be comical. The prosecution’s star witness delivers evidence that characterizes the payment as honest and pure — evidence that helps the defence. The defence will likely cast Wright’s evidence as selfserving and suggest that there was a secret and corrupt coverup scheme — evidence that can only help the prosecution.
The defence will need to walk on the razor’s edge to avoid doing the Crown’s job for it. Ultimately, Duffy might be cutting off his nose to spite the prime minister’s office. Irony is indeed alive and well in Ottawa.
It was almost as if the prosecution and defence secretly switched teams