Killers’ sentencing will wait until defence motion heard

Lawyers claim abuse of process because of alleged police misconduct, as well as mistreatment of prisoners in jail

A B. C. Supreme Court judge will decide Friday whether to appoint two special lawyers to represent the interests of Surrey Six killers Cody Haevischer and Matthew Johnston on legal issues related to police dealings with a confidential informer in the murder case.

Crown prosecutor Mark Levitz told Justice Catherine Wedge Wednesday that he had no issue with the court appointing “amicus” lawyers for the specific purpose of dealing with a pretrial ruling about the informer.

Haevischer and Johnston were convicted last week of six counts of firstdegree murder and one of conspiracy in the Oct. 19, 2007 slayings of drug dealers Cody and Michael Lal, Ryan Bartolomeo, Eddie Narong and bystanders Chris Mohan and Ed Schellenberg.

But their defence lawyers have filed an abuse of process application, saying the charges against their clients should be stayed because of alleged police misconduct, as well as mistreatment of the Red Scorpions in jail after their arrest.

A hearing on the defence application is set to begin Oct. 27, with the Crown arguing that it should be dismissed.

If the Crown loses its initial bid, police witnesses are expected to testify in December about the defence allegations of misconduct.

The sentencing of the two killers will go ahead only after the defence application is completed. Both face a mandatory life sentence with no parole eligibility for 25 years.

Johnston’s lawyer Brock Martland asked Monday to have the two additional lawyers appointed to represent his client’s interests on the confidential informer issue.

Before the Surrey Six trial began on Sept. 20, 2013, Wedge ruled that a key Crown witness known only as Person X could not be called as a witness against Haevischer and Johnston because of information provided to police by the informer, dubbed E- 5.

Person X, a Red Scorpion gangster who pleaded guilty to shooting three of the Surrey Six victims, won a ban on his name to protect him inside prison because of his co- operation with police. Because E- 5 did not want their identities revealed, their information could not be disclosed to the defence and therefore X could not be called, Wedge ruled.

She said in a short summary at the time that X’s “evidence is inadmissible for the reasons stated in the ruling, which is in writing and has been sealed in the court record.”

Confidential informers have an absolute right to have their identities protected, Wedge said.

“The court has no discretion with regard to privilege; it is an absolute duty to protect the informer’s identity,” she ruled.

Martland said there might be issues with how the police dealt with the informer and if so, lawyers representing the interests of the accused should have access to details of the in camera hearing and earlier ruling.

The court has no discretion with regard to privilege; it is an absolute duty to protect the informer’s identity. CATHERINE WEDGE B. C. SUPREME COURT JUDGE