VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight

[Cloud Cover]

If he was in possession of confidential information and disclosed it or confirmed it, he breached confidence regardless of the originating source. I think it is unwise to be anything but circumspect about the core issue in this matter. 

 

[Rifleman62]

Cloud Cover:

...... that might even result in a finding of a breach of procedural fairness for the accused  and he may in fact not be convicted on that basis (because certain evidence may be excluded)....

Note that: Henein is bringing an abuse-of-process motion, saying she can’t properly defend Norman (who still hasn’t been able to access his own emails) in these circumstances. That will be heard the week of March 25.

 

[suffolkowner]

does the crown not have to prove
The accused is an official; yes

The accused was acting in connection with the duties of his or her office; yes
The accused breached the standard of responsibility and conduct demanded of him or her by the nature of the office; maybe
The conduct of the accused represented a serious and marked departure from the standards expected of an individual in the accused’s position of public trust; and maybe
The accused acted with the intention to use his or her public office for a purpose other than the public good, for example, for a dishonest, partial, corrupt, or oppressive purpose. no?

 

[Cloud Cover]

Good, I hope she succeeds because it seems to be the case that something’s rotten, but it won’t clear the air about whether he did it or not. Only a trial can do that,but if they won’t allow him information to clear his name then they still had their way with him, no? Mission accomplished either way for the Libs.

 

[Cloud Cover]

There is an arguable, articulable case to be made that tipping off Davie (if that happened) or confirming confidential information (if that happened) is dishonest, regardless if it was for the “good of the service”, confidential is confidential. The Crown will forcefully argue that intent of the objective of “dishonest” is in part to protect whistleblowers from government suppression of wrongdoing. At least, that could theoretically be what the court will have to decide on the facts.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Did he disclose anything? Or did he hear from second hand information that the government was looking at cancelling the contract. Also why is James Cudmore not being questioned? He broke the story. Did he receive info from Norman? Or from the young staffer who actually had the brief?

Also, don't forget that they are investigating someone else, who they seem to be able to trace dropping off the package to Davie.  So even if he did discuss the information, did Davie already have it?  Also, Canada was in contract at that point, should the GoC not have disclosed that to Davie if that was their intent after the election?

This whole thing is a shit show, and their case seems to have giant gaping holes without all the disclosure shenanigans. If this does go to trial the lists of who could be called as witnesses would be interesting though, as this was something being pushed through PM Harper's office.

 

[Kirkhill]

Public Record

Witnesses for the Prosecution

Continuity/Admissibility

Peter McKay
RCMP Search and Exhibit Team - Beauregard, Bertrand, Boulanger, Brassard, Cochrane, Ferrante, Gagnon, Grenier, Hebert, Lanteigne, Samonekeo
RCMP Tech Crime Team - Figoni, Gravel, Grondin, Pomerleau, Potvin

Substantive Witnesses

Cdr David Anderson RCN
Tisha Ashton TB
Scott Brison TB
Melissa Burke PCO
Ian Burney PCO
Matthew Crawley PSPC
James Cudmore
George Da Pont PSPC
Spencer Fraser Federal Fleet Services
Siobhan Harty PCO
Gavin Liddy PSPC
Les Linklater PCO
VAdm Ron Lloyd RCN
RAdm Art McDonald RCN
Jon Mack DND
Kevin McCoy Irving Shipyards
Catherine McKenna GOC Minister
Brian Mersereau Hill-Knowlton
Nicholas Ruszkowski Fleishman Hillard
LGen Guy Thibault CA
Gen Jonathan Vance CA
David Vigneault PCO
PCO Witness
Prof Donald Savoie Expert

 

[brihard]

does the crown not have to prove
The accused is an official; yes

The accused was acting in connection with the duties of his or her office; yes
The accused breached the standard of responsibility and conduct demanded of him or her by the nature of the office; maybe
The conduct of the accused represented a serious and marked departure from the standards expected of an individual in the accused’s position of public trust; and maybe
The accused acted with the intention to use his or her public office for a purpose other than the public good, for example, for a dishonest, partial, corrupt, or oppressive purpose. no?

Lest this post get overlooked, I wanted to reinforce the important of what suffolkowner added here. These five things, each individually, are the 'essential elements' of the offense of Breach of Trust by a public officer. He quoted them directly from R. v. Boulanger, a 2006 Supreme Court of Canada case that outlines exactly what the offense of 'breach of trust' is.

In criminal law, the 'essential elements' of an offense are the things that must all be individually proven for a conviction to be found. This post has as succinctly as possible offered us a summary of what the crown has to prove- the five boxes it needs to tick in the prosecution.

I won't be weighing in with an opinion on the case, but I didn't want those less familiar with criminal law to miss the really helpful bit that suffolkowner added here.

 

[Rifleman62]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mark-norman-davie-shipyard-breach-trust-1.5014538

Norman's defence accuses Trudeau PMO of attempting to direct prosecution - 11 Feb 19
  'The prosecution should not be discussing trial strategy with the (PMO's) right hand person' - Mainville

The essence of the article above is the the Judge's remark:

"The prosecution should not be discussing trial strategy with the Prime Minister's Office's right-hand person," she said, referring to the PCO legal counsel. "By all appearances, this is a more direct influencing of the prosecution. The attorney general is entirely bypassed. The Prime Minister's Office, via its right arm the PCO, is dealing directly with the (Public Prosecution Service of Canada). And the prosecution service is allowing this to happen."

That prompted a cutting remark from the judge hearing Norman's case.

"So much for the independence of the PPSC," said Judge Heather Perkins-McVey.

Then there is the Minister of Justice/PMO/SNC mess.



Possibly it's me, but compare the CBC story at link above to the National Post's article. Seems the CBC article left some of the  (damning) back and forth out.

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/alleged-political-interference-in-mark-norman-case-more-concerning-than-snc-lavalin-accusations-defence-lawyer?video_autoplay=true

Alleged political interference in Mark Norman case ‘more concerning’ than SNC-Lavalin accusations: defence - 11 Feb 19
  Lawyer Christine Mainville told the court that prosecutors should not be talking strategy with the Privy Council Office, which she
    called the ‘right arm’ to the PMO

 

[The Bread Guy]

And, for the record, a "here's what we meant" from the  Public Prosecution Service of Canada:

In light of comments made in the press regarding the prosecution of Vice Admiral Mark Norman, the Public Prosecution Service of Canada would like to clarify the context of the conversations between PPSC counsel and counsel for the Privy Council Office.

The document was PPSC counsel’s notes of conversations between crown counsel and counsel for the Privy Council Office. In the process of preparing for trial, the PPSC was looking to identify potential witnesses who could explain issues of cabinet confidence, as it is applied by the Clerk of the Privy Council.  The PPSC will be producing an unredacted version of the notes on Friday to the judge.

The PPSC has not sought or received instructions in respect of the prosecution of Mr. Norman from the Privy Council Office or any other government department or body.

Director of Public Prosecutions Ms. Kathleen Roussel said: “I am confident that our prosecutors, in this and every other case, exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration.”

The principle of prosecutorial independence is key to the PPSC’s mandate. PPSC prosecutors are expected to be objective, independent, and dispassionate in the exercise of their duties, and to exercise those duties in a manner free from any improper influence, including political influence.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Article Link

Procurement official with links to Mark Norman case charged with breach of trust

A government official who was named in the unfolding case against suspended Vice-Admiral Mark Norman has been charged with breach of trust and is alleged to have unlawfully disclosed government information to unauthorized parties.

On Tuesday the RCMP charged procurement official Matthew Matchett with one count of breach of trust under the Criminal Code.

"This concludes an extensive criminal investigation which first began in December 2015, when the RCMP received a complaint alleging that cabinet confidence information about a Canadian naval supply ship contract had been leaked," said the RCMP in a press release.

Matchett, who works at Public Services and Procurement Canada, was identified in a court filing by Norman's defence team on Oct. 12, 2018 and later suspended without pay.

He's expected to appear in court March 5.

Norman is accused of leaking cabinet secrets on 12 occasions to the Davie Shipyard, in Levis, Que., and to a CBC journalist in November 2015, regarding a government plan to lease from Davie a supply ship for the navy.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I wonder if this the turning point; and now we'll see a "whoops we're sorry Adm Norman, old boy.  We had the wrong guy all along".  Me thinks this government doesn't want this and the SNC Lavalin shindig going down at the same time.

 

[Cloud Cover]

... but they are going down at the same time. The trains have left both stations, and the Liberals have greased their own rails ...

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I wonder if this the turning point; and now we'll see a "whoops we're sorry Adm Norman, old boy.  We had the wrong guy all along".  Me thinks this government doesn't want this and the SNC Lavalin shindig going down at the same time.

What this government wants or does not want is irrelevant.

Unless they actually are interfering politically (it is not beyond them, my personal opinion here), they were stupid enough to ask for RCMP investigations in a moment of anger and that's the end of it: After that, investigating, reviewing the evidence and deciding if an accusation is warranted, then proceeding with and setting its schedule is entirely in the hands of the police, prosecutor's office and ultimately the Court. The government has no say nor any further decision to make ... at least in a country under the rule of law.

 

[Cloud Cover]

What this government wants or does not want is irrelevant.

Unless they actually are interfering politically (it is not beyond them, my personal opinion here), they were stupid enough to ask for RCMP investigations in a moment of anger and that's the end of it: After that, investigating, reviewing the evidence and deciding if an accusation is warranted, then proceeding with and setting its schedule is entirely in the hands of the police, prosecutor's office and ultimately the Court. The government has no say nor any further decision to make ... at least in a country under the rule of law.

:nod:

 

[Rifleman62]

Quote from: Oldgateboatdriver on Today at 19:23:50
What this government wants or does not want is irrelevant.

Unless they actually are interfering politically (it is not beyond them, my personal opinion here), they were stupid enough to ask for RCMP investigations in a moment of anger and that's the end of it: After that, investigating, reviewing the evidence and deciding if an accusation is warranted, then proceeding with and setting its schedule is entirely in the hands of the police, prosecutor's office and ultimately the Court. The government has no say nor any further decision to make ... at least in a country under the rule of law.

NP comments today which appears to refute the above:

crumb13 Feb 2019 5:39 AM

There is, to my mind, an even bigger issue of abuse of process by government. I hearken back the government's attempt to put a gag order on their whole investigation of the embarrassment that the ham-handed attempt to finagle the contract for the supply ship to the Irvings caused. Having spent weeks investigating in secret, when VAdm Norman was publicly identified and put on ice without charges the RCMP applied for a press gag on reporting any detail of their investigation.

The judge who heard this application rejected it, ruling that the RCMP's affidavit failed to convince him that one was justified. He went on to opine that it also left him unconvinced that there was legal justification for their investigation having been pursued to the length it had been already. And he published that affidavit, albeit heavily redacted.

A read through the RCMP affidavit, as heavily redacted as it was, shows that at several points the RCMP, having reported to (redacted) that they could find no evidence that VAdm Norman had committed any offense, were then directed to double down on their efforts and use increasingly intrusive and questionable surveillance tools.

When, at the final juncture, they again reported that they could find no evidence of an offense, the investigation culminating in the dawn raid on the Norman family home. Why this was necessary and done is an open question, although one can see the chilling effect of this drama on anyone else who might irritate or cause embarrassment to the government.

We can understand why the judge was querulous; given the amount of time and effort that went into determining that there was no evidence that VAdm Norman had committed any offense, the logic that uses this lack of evidence to justify raiding his home and suspending him from his position is indefensible. But this was done, at someone's direction.

Whose; one wonders?

 

[Loachman]

Link?

 

[Cloud Cover]

The person who wrote that is referring to the ITO a search warrant, and this decision of Judge Phillips to make the redacted ITO available: The Globe and Mail Inc. v. R., 2017 ONSC 2407
http://canlii.ca/t/h3h48

The decision contains, among other interesting statements, this gut wrenching observation about the case:

"[34]          It is part of Canada’s history for military procurement and political considerations to go hand in hand.  From Ross rifles to Sea King helicopters, supplies for the armed forces have often been buffeted by political winds.  The results are perhaps not always well received by those on the receiving end of the supply chain.  Here, it would appear that in late 2015, a long-awaited initiative to replace the Navy’s supply ship was maybe headed off the rails due to political considerations, a possibility that allegedly upset a man most eagerly awaiting completion of the contract.  In my view, that mindset and alleged communication arising from it is hardly the stuff of stigma or moral turpitude.  At its highest, it appears that the potential allegation against Vice-Admiral Norman is that he was trying to keep a contractual relationship together so that the country might get itself a badly needed supply ship.  A reasonable member of the informed public might understand the frustration of being Vice-Admiral of a Navy that cannot on its own go more than a tank of gas away from port.  Nowhere is there any suggestion that the man was even thinking of trying to line his own pockets, or get any personal advantage whatsoever.  An officer of his rank would be expected to develop and maintain relationships with those in the business of supplying the Navy and his communications with such people are not, therefore, in and of themselves untoward."
...

 

[Loachman]

PCO lawyer asked prosecutor if there was a way to 'engineer issues' in Norman case, court hears

Judge hearing breach of trust case reads out redacted comments from prosecution notes during pre-trial hearing

Murray Brewster CBC News Posted: Feb 15, 2019 1:04 PM ET

The top lawyer at the Privy Council Office apparently asked federal prosecutors if it was possible to "engineer the issues at stake" in the criminal case against Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.

The remarks - made on Sept. 14, 2018 and attributed to PCO lawyer Paul Shuttle - were contained in prosecution notes entered into evidence at a pretrial hearing involving the former vice-chief of the defence staff, who faces one count of breach of trust.

Justice Heather Perkins-McVey made reference to them on Friday as the Crown attempted to explain why it redacted notes being sought by Norman's defence team.

The judge acknowledged there is a lot background missing from the reference.

"You wonder what that is about," said Perkins-McVey. "We don't know the context, what they were speaking about."

Defence attorney Christine Mainville agreed and suggested she wasn't prepared to jump to conclusions either, saying a lot of references in both the censored and uncensored versions of the notes "remain ambiguous."

But she also noted during Friday's pretrial hearing that notes of meetings between the Crown and officials at the Privy Council Office, which supports the Prime Minister's Office and cabinet, will be important to the defence when it moves at the end of March to have the charges against Norman dismissed.

<snip>

"There no direction from the Privy Council Office to PPSC on how to direct the case," he said. "There was no direction or input from the Prime Minister's Office to our office on how to direct the case."

As he spoke, Justice Perkins-McVey flipped through the censored version of the meeting notes and asked, "What about comments from Paul Shuttle, like, 'Is there a way to engineer the issues at stake?'"

The Crown did file an uncensored version with the courts on Friday.

MacFarlane insisted the meetings were meant to identify a potential witness who could speak to the issue of cabinet confidences. Norman is accused of leaking cabinet secrets related to a $668 million shipbuilding deal to lease a supply ship for the navy in 2015.

The judge seemed skeptical of that explanation.

"There was certainly a discussion of evidence," said Perkins-McVey, referring to the notes but not quoting further from them. "There was discussion of the evidence-gathering process. Obviously this was done well before."

The Liberals are not doing well in the comment section - and this is a CBC article.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Mark Norman's defence team hits Trudeau, Butts with subpoenas

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mark-norman-trudeau-wernick-butts-1.5029737

Subpoenas have been issued to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his former and current top officials — including ex-principal secretary Gerald Butts — for any notes, emails or texts they may have related to the criminal case against Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.

The notes are being sought by the legal team defending the former vice chief of the defence staff against a single charge of breach of trust. Norman is accused of leaking cabinet secrets in relation to a shipbuilding deal.

The subpoenas were issued earlier this month as Toronto lawyer Marie Henein was preparing a motion to dismiss the case on the basis of alleged political interference.

The court order for notes includes both the prime minister and Butts, and also Trudeau's Chief of Staff Katie Telford, Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick and Zita Astravas, chief of staff to Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan.

More on link above.