Transcript of Trial Proceedings (2019-08-12)
Synopsis
This is the trial for the allegation that I violated my probation conditions by leaving BC without permission.
Prior to the start of the trial I had been trying to obtain the video footage of myself at the Douglas port of entry, from CBSA, to prove I had, in fact, turned myself in and was denied readmission. That would have proven I did not leave voluntarily - I was effectively removed by CBSA. A few days before the start of the trial, the prosecutor Bernie Wolfe notifed me that CBSA had destroyed all of the video of me at the port of entry.
Also, prior to the trial, CBSA and in particular CBSA Intelligence Officer Shan-Marie Perreira, had been insisting there was absolutely no record of CBSA having any interaction with me on 2019-03-15 (the day I turned myself in and was denied readmission). Wolfe then used that to insist I must be lying about turning myself in because otherwise there would be some record of it.
While reviewing the disclosure material in preparation of the trial, I had noticed that immediately upon starting their investigation, the RCMP had requested video footage of me from US CBP, however there was no record of them requesting the footage from CBSA. The CBP footage would prove that I had crossed the border, but it woudln't show that the reason I crossed was because CBSA told me I must.
By the time of the trial, I still hadn't received anything indicating that the RCMP had requested any video footage from CBSA. So, I questioned Constable Tyler Hawkins about this when I cross-examined him. He said he believed there was an email from him, requesting CBSA's footage but he didn't have it with him. So his testimony was adjorned to the next day so he could find that and bring it to court p48l18-p52l22.
Where I was going with that line of questioning was to establish that the RCMP deliberately did not request the video from CBSA because they knew it would prove my innocence.
PDFBCSC File No. 30630
244069-5-BC
Vancouver Registry
In the Provincial Court of British Columbia
(BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUDGE ST. PIERRE)
Vancouver, B.C.
August 12, 2019
REGINA
v.
PATRICK HENRY FOX
v.
PATRICK HENRY FOX
PROCEEDINGS AT TRIAL
(DAY 1)
(DAY 1)
244069-5-BC
Vancouver Registry
In the Provincial Court of British Columbia
(BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUDGE ST. PIERRE)
Vancouver, B.C.
August 12, 2019
REGINA
v.
PATRICK HENRY FOX
v.
PATRICK HENRY FOX
PROCEEDINGS AT TRIAL
(DAY 1)
(DAY 1)
Crown Counsel: Bernie Wolfe
Appearing on his own behalf: Patrick Fox
INDEX
- OPENING FOR CROWN BY MR. WOLFE
- WITNESSES FOR THE CROWN
EXHIBITS
- EXHIBIT 1: Certified copies of Certificate of Conviction
- EXHIBIT 2: Certified copy of Probation Order dated November 10, 2017
- EXHIBIT 3: Certified copy of Variation of Probation Order dated February 6, 2019
- EXHIBIT 4: Google Map view of Peace Arch border crossing
- EXHIBIT 5: Copy of British Columbia driver's licence for Patrick Fox
- EXHIBIT A (on voir dire): Transcript of Arrest Script of Patrick Fox on April 4, 2019
- EXHIBIT B (on voir dire): CD audio recording of arrest and Charter of Fox by Constable Hawkins
RULINGS
- Nil
Vancouver, B.C.
August 12, 2019
Judge:
Mr. Wolfe is here.
Wolfe:
Yes, Wolfe, initial B., for the Provincial Crown, Your Honour.
Judge:
Okay. Thank you. And Mr. Fox.
Fox:
Yes.
Judge:
Okay. I've got 244069 at the -- sequence BC5. Is that the one we're dealing with?
Wolfe:
Yes.
Judge:
Okay. And has there been pleas entered on this Information?
Wolfe:
I don't recall. I don't think pleas have been entered.
Clerk:
I have not guilty pleas to Counts 1, 2 and 3 on June 3rd of this year.
Wolfe:
There we are.
Judge:
June 3rd, okay.
Fox:
It sounds right to me.
Judge:
Thanks. Okay, thank you. Mr. Fox, there's -- not guilty pleas have been entered on all three counts. For your benefit, I don't know how much -- I shouldn't assume your experience with these things, so essentially the Crown is going to call their case, their witnesses will be called. I don't imagine there's been any admissions, Mr. Wolfe?
Wolfe:
No.
Judge:
Okay. So the Crown will call the case against you and they have -- the essential elements we talked about last time, on one of the occasions, they have to prove. Once Mr. Wolfe has questioned his witnesses you'll have a chance obviously to -- to questions those witnesses, cross-examine them, challenge, clarify, you know, elicit any evidence that you think is relevant or helpful.
Once the Crown has finished calling all of their evidence and I call upon them and they close their case, then I will ask you, Mr. Fox, whether you have any evidence to call for on your behalf. You don't have to do that. No criminal defendant has to elicit any evidence themselves. They can simply rely on submissions of whether the Crown has proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt. It's always the burden on the Crown to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, and that burden never shifts except there is a -- in your case an evidentiary burden. If the Crown has met all of the elements of the case then you have -- you can -- you're entitled to raise a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with whatever the Crown has proven. Okay.
But when we get to that point I'll call upon you, okay, Mr. Fox. At this point do you have any questions about the process?
Fox:
No. No, I don't. Thank you.
Judge:
Okay. You've gone through -- well, at least one Supreme Court trial; is that right?
Fox:
That is correct, yes.
Judge:
Yes. And did you have assistance at that time? Did you have counsel?
Fox:
No. No, I was representing myself in that. I've also had some matters in the U.S. that I've been through.
Judge:
Yes.
Fox:
The procedures isn't quite similar but a little different.
Judge:
Yes. Yes, they do have more similarities than differences, but the differences may be important ones. Okay. If you have any questions you'll raise them, and Mr. Wolfe and I, both have an obligation to ensure that you have a fair trial.
Fox:
Okay. May I say before we proceed.
Judge:
Yes. Yes.
Fox:
Last week Mr. Wolfe had mentioned that there was some issue with CBSA or the RCMP losing or destroying some critical evidence which was video of me at the border on March 15th.
Judge:
Yes.
Fox:
And there was some talk of reviewing the Supreme Court case law. I haven't been able to review that case yet because I don't have instantaneous access to the Law Library and it usually takes a week to 10 days to get into the Law Library at the jail. However, I do have some vague recollection on those issues when I was preparing for the criminal harassment case previously, and I am aware that in some circumstances when the government loses or destroys critical evidence that may be grounds for a stay, but I don't intend to pursue that at this time.
Judge:
Okay. All right. Thank you.
Fox:
Thank you.
Judge:
All right. Mr. Wolfe, do you have anything to add to what I've said to Mr. Fox?
Wolfe:
No, but I will to assist him. Now, briefly outline the case and the witnesses --
Judge:
Sure.
Wolfe:
-- and the order.
Judge:
By way of an opening?
Wolfe:
Yes.
Judge:
Okay.
OPENING FOR CROWN BY MR. WOLFE:
Wolfe:
So the case against Mr. Fox is reflected on the BC5 Information. There's an alleged failure to report on March the 19th, 2019. He had been directed to report that day Crown will say by his probation officer and he did not.
Count 2 is leaving the Province of British Columbia without the written permission of his probation officer, and the offence date there is March the 15th, 2019.
And then on that same day, March the 15th, 2019, he was within 100 metres of the U.S.A.- Canada border, and Counts 2 and 3, Crown says, are contrary to the conditions of his probation order imposed upon him by the ACJ Holmes after she had sentenced him for the index offence.
The witnesses Crown has are two JPs who reviewed the probation orders with Mr. Fox. One probation order is dated November the 17th. But Mr. Fox also had it varied on February the 6th, 2019, and there are two different -- they're JPs now who reviewed that order with him, going over the terms.
They're being called because I would have to show that this order was brought to the attention of a person named Patrick Henry Fox, with that date of birth, and the terms on it are the material terms which, Crown says, he breached on those two offence dates.
The Crown is also calling the probation officer, Mr. Bhimji, who reviewed the November, 2017, probation order with him. Met with Mr. Fox on two occasions. The last -- the latter occasion was the 15th of March when he was directed -- when Mr. Fox was directed to return on the 19th of March, 2019, and he did not.
The third Crown witness is a Customs and Border patrol officer named Obrist, O-b-r-i-s-t. And Officer Obrist was the Border Control officer who interacted with Mr. Fox when Mr. Fox crossed the 49th parallel and entered into the United States, and that was on the 15th of March, 2019.
The Crown is also calling two members of the Burnaby RCMP Detachment, Brown and Hawkins. They were assigned as --
Judge:
Brown and?
Wolfe:
Hawkins.
Judge:
Hawkins, okay.
Wolfe:
H-a-w-k-i-n-s. They were assigned as lead investigators in relation to the investigation which led to the charges.
Judge:
Okay.
Wolfe:
Their involvement really in a material way, from more important way starts on the 4th of April when they went down to the Border, so to speak, and took Mr. Fox into custody on a warrant in the first instance related to the failure to report allegation of March 19th.
Judge:
Okay.
Wolfe:
Lastly, Crown is calling -- he's now a corporal, he was a -- I think when Mr. Fox last engaged him, a constable, but Corporal Jason Potts who took a warned statement from Mr. Fox on the 4th of April, 2019.
It's my assessment of the case, there isn't a live issue regarding Charter compliance. Mr. Fox was chartered under 10(a) and (b) of the Charter and clearly waived the right to counsel. The issue with respect to the statement is just voluntariness. So, one would have a voir dire on that. I don't --
Judge:
So Crown is intending to enter into evidence that warned statement?
Wolfe:
Yes.
Judge:
Okay.
Wolfe:
I don't anticipate Mr. Fox would admit the voluntariness of the statement. I would be a little comfortable asking him to make that admission.
Judge:
No, I don't think it's appropriate. I agree with you.
Wolfe:
And I'll tell you why, just so he understands. There are all kinds of issues that deal with -- whenever a person deals with a figure in authority, a person in authority, it raises issues about whether or not the things that are said by that person are said freely, or whether there -- a function of a quid pro quo or an influence or promise or hope of advantage.
So the analysis the court enters into to determine whether or not what a person says to a police constable during a warned statement becomes rather -- could be slightly nuanced because there are other factors that affect voluntariness such as the tone of somebody's voice or whether the person giving the statement is in a cold cell without a blanket. Anything that is said by an accused under these circumstances has to be shown to be given freely, and that his will to say something is not overborne by the pressures that might have been exerted upon him, either environmentally or by the person questioning him. So the context really get -- may become complex and it's really up to His Honour to make that determination. That's what I would not seek that admission from Mr. Fox. Does that make sense, Your Honour?
Judge:
Yes. Yes. Mr. Fox, if you have any questions about that just let me know, okay, and that's the voluntariness of the statement. The Crown has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your statement was made voluntarily, and that word in law has a number of different factors to consider, okay. All right.
Wolfe:
There are some exhibits to file. I have given document notice with respect to a number of documents, and I stand in a position to file them. I have a certified true copy of the probation order, certified by the ACJ herself, and I've given document notice under the Canada Evidence Act. I have both the variation order and the probation order and they're both certified by ACJ Holmes. I've given copies of those. I have extra hard copies for the court and for Mr. Fox, but formal notice was given that Crown was tendering these relying under the Canada Evidence Act.
I also have a certified copy --
Judge:
So you have copies that you're going to be seeking to enter under section --
Wolfe:
It's 23.
Judge:
-- 23?
Wolfe:
Yes, I do.
Judge:
Yes.
Wolfe:
And then I also have a certified true copy of the conviction -- Certificate of Conviction which -- to which are attached Exhibits A and B; A being a copy of the indictment and then B being the Notice of Committal upon conviction. Again, these have been certified by the ACJ and they're under seal.
So, if I may tender these as exhibits and have them filed, please?
Judge:
Yes. And Mr. Fox has copies of all of these, I take it.
Wolfe:
I'm going to give him hard copies. He's only had the electronic ones that have been put on the disclosure laptop, but I've made copies for you and for Mr. Fox. These are the originals certified.
Judge:
Okay.
Clerk:
How do you want these entered?
Judge:
Yes. How do you want these documents numbered?
Wolfe:
Well, I think each one should be a separate exhibit because the Certificate of Conviction is clearly a different type of document than the probation order.
Judge:
Yes. So we'll start with the conviction, Mr. Fox. There's a bundle of papers here, one, two, three, four -- there's five pages, some of them are double-sided, but five pages that are stapled here together, certified. Copies of the conviction under section 23 of the Canada Evidence Act will be Exhibit 1 then.
Judge:
And then there is a probation order dated November 10th, 2017. It's a probation order of Madam Justice Holmes; again it's a multi-page document and that's stapled together and that can be entered as Exhibit 2.
Judge:
So I've got the conviction as one, probation order as two, and then there's a variation of that order which is dated February 6th, 2019. That variation was endorsed by Madam Justice Holmes, and that document can be entered as Exhibit 3, the variation, under section 23 of the Canada Evidence Act. Do you have any question about that, Mr. Fox?
Fox:
No, I don't.
Judge:
Okay.
Wolfe:
So the variation order you said was Exhibit 3?
Judge:
Exhibit 3 is the variation.
Wolfe:
And one was the certificate?
Judge:
One was the conviction.
Wolfe:
Right.
Judge:
Yes. And are these mine? Did you have copies for me too?
Wolfe:
I do, yes.
Judge:
Or are these the court's? Yes, that's fine. Or we can make copies at the break, it doesn't matter.
Wolfe:
Okay. That's for the Judge.
Judge:
Thank you.
Wolfe:
I have other exhibits to enter but I'll -- and I've given notice. I might as well have them entered now, but I will be directing them to witnesses or a particular witness.
Judge:
Yes. So Mr. Fox, these documents are entitled to be entered under the Evidence Act. The Crown must prove, not only the existence of the orders on that date, but that you were bound by -- on the date of the offence that you were bound by those orders. Okay. So in other words, that these orders were in place on the date of the offence. So that will become different -- at a different time.
As well, you're entitled to, at the end of the day, to make submissions with respect to the interpretation of these documents, okay. All right.
So these are the three. Now, you've got -- you've got something else?
Wolfe:
I do. Under -- I've given document notice under section 30 of the Canada Evidence Act.
Judge:
Section?
Wolfe:
Thirty.
Judge:
Thirty.
Wolfe:
With respect to the business records kept by Corrections. I will be putting these to the -- I might have a choice. I can lead them viva voce through the witness Bhimji. In a way I'm doing it twice and --
Judge:
Let's do that.
Wolfe:
Do you want to do it that way through him?
Judge:
Sure.
Wolfe:
Sure. So I'll hold off on these and put them in through Bhimji.
Judge:
Then they can -- they can testify that it's a record made in the usual and ordinary course under section 30 of the Canada Evidence Act. Okay.
Wolfe:
So if I could step out I'll call my -- bring in my first witness, please.
Judge:
Sure.
Wolfe:
This witness affirms.
Judge:
Thank you.
HARJIT DHINJAL
a witness called for the Crown, affirmed.
Clerk:
Please state your full name and spell your last name, for the record.
Dhinjal:
Harjit Dhinjal. Last name D-h-i-n-j-a-l.
Judge:
D-h-i-n-j-a-l?
Dhinjal:
Yes.
Judge:
Oh, hang on just for a sec. Something happened to my --
Dhinjal:
Sorry, Your Honour?
Judge:
Oh, something happened to my computer here. D-h-i-n-j --
Dhinjal:
D-h-i-n-j-a-l.
Judge:
Thank you, Ms. Dhinjal. That microphone it just -- it just records, okay.
Dhinjal:
Okay.
Judge:
It doesn't make you louder so you just basically -- if you keep your voice up nice and loud every --
Dhinjal:
Okay, I will try.
Judge:
-- yes, everyone can hear you. Okay, thanks.
EXAMINATION IN CHIEF BY MR. WOLFE:
Wolfe:
Witness, I want to take your mind back, please, to an occasion which was on November the 10th, 2017, which brings you into court today, and it's in particular relation to a probation order made up at the Supreme Court in Vancouver. And do you recall the event which brings you in today?
Dhinjal:
I've been advised of the matter that I -- I can't recall it as much. It's been a couple of years.
Wolfe:
Yes, it's understood. Back on November the 10th, 2017, how were you employed?
Dhinjal:
I was employed at the Vancouver Supreme Court. I was a justice of the peace and a supervisor at the Criminal Registry.
Wolfe:
Now, just briefly regarding your job duties. Did they include reviewing terms of probation orders to probationers?
Dhinjal:
Correct.
Wolfe:
So perhaps you -- you could explain exactly what the practice is -- your practice is for doing that task?
Dhinjal:
Okay. So when a judge orders a probation order, any sentencing document, the typist will prepare the document and then the justice of the peace will go over the conditions, make sure they match what was reflected in court, and then we would -- well, I would go down to the cells to read them to the accused. So my practice is usually to make sure the document is correct and then once I go downstairs I would confirm the identity of the person I'm reading to, get their name, verify their name and their date of birth. If the person is the person that is supposed to before me then I would go over the conditions, what happened in court, the charges and read over the condition -- conditions with them.
At the end of reading the conditions I would ask them if they have any questions and if they understand the conditions, go over the breaches that if they failed to comply with the conditions and how they could go about making the changes if they need to change any of those conditions.
Wolfe:
So is that your usual practice then when you -- when you review an order?
Dhinjal:
Yes, usual -- that's my usual practice.
Wolfe:
I beg your pardon?
Dhinjal:
That is my usual practice.
Wolfe:
It is. Now, with respect to -- do you sign the order at any point?
Dhinjal:
I do. We do -- at Vancouver Supreme Court we weren't signing them electronically, digitally, it was by pen but we have to sign the order as well after the offender has signed the order.
Wolfe:
And in cases where a probationer or an offender refuses to sign what do you do?
Dhinjal:
Well, I would go over -- I would ask them that if they would sign the document, if they refused I would ask them once more but then I would indicate to them that I am going to indicate that they either declined to sign or refused to sign the order, they still are bound by the conditions. But it just reflects that they did not want to sign the conditions or the order.
Wolfe:
Do you -- do you sign an order at any particular point in the exercise, initially or only after you've reviewed or at what point do you put your signature on the order?
Dhinjal:
Normal practice is after the conditions have been read and the offender has signed the document, the justice of the peace are supposed to sign after the fact. If the person has refused to sign the document then I would indicate declined to sign, refused to sign and then I sign the signature box for the justice of the peace. So always after the conditions have been read and the person has signed them, I would sign the document.
Wolfe:
When you say you read the terms are you reading them to yourself or to the offender or what do you mean by read the terms?
Dhinjal:
I'll be reading the terms to the offender, going by condition after condition.
Wolfe:
So you're signing on behalf of the judge, are you?
Dhinjal:
Yes. As a clerk of the court on behalf of the judge.
Wolfe:
The date that appears on a probation order, is that the date that you reviewed the order or is it on a different date?
Dhinjal:
What -- is the date -- dated?
Wolfe:
Yes.
Dhinjal:
It's the date that the order was pronounced.
Wolfe:
Is that also the date that you review?
Dhinjal:
Yes.
Wolfe:
I wonder if Exhibit 2, please, could be put to the witness.
Judge:
Exhibit 2, yes, the probation order.
Wolfe:
So witness, I just want to take you through -- through that. In the upper right-hand corner we can see a court file number. It's 6011:217 -- sorry -- 27178-2. What does that indicate?
Dhinjal:
That's the -- 6011 is the location of Vancouver Supreme Court, and 27178 is the file number for the individual.
Wolfe:
Are these numbers unique?
Dhinjal:
Yes.
Wolfe:
And by that I mean to say this file only relates to this case, not to another case?
Dhinjal:
Correct. Unless there's a co-accused then they will have the same number but this file number is for Mr. Fox.
Wolfe:
So we see its title as a probation order and there is a DOB which I presume -- does that stand for date of birth?
Dhinjal:
Sorry?
Wolfe:
In the upper right-hand corner there's DOB November 24th, '73.
Dhinjal:
That's the date of birth of the --
Wolfe:
Date of birth. Of whom?
Dhinjal:
Of Patrick Fox.
Wolfe:
And the full name there is Patrick Henry Fox, as we can read that, correct?
Dhinjal:
Correct.
Wolfe:
Now, below that appear to be recitals indicating that he was convicted or found guilty as the case may be on the following charges, and on November 10, 2017, the court or judge, the offender be imprisoned, and then below that is the sentence that appears; is that correct?
Dhinjal:
Yes, correct.
Wolfe:
And I'm not directing your attention to a variation, but there appears to be a stamp and superimposed on the order indicating that this order was varied in February, 2019; is that correct?
Dhinjal:
If there is a stamp on it, it would have been -- it would have been varied after I would have signed the document.
Wolfe:
Understood. And then there's other language in there indicating a couple of things; one, just below the sentence imposed, I've read or have had read to me and understand the total of one charge, and then below that, and in addition thereto the said offender comply with the conditions hereinafter prescribed. Now, therefore, the said offender shall for the period stated above from the date of expiration of imprisonment comply with the following conditions; namely, that the offender -- the said offender shall, and then there's a line inserted, I've read or have had read to me and understand a total of 17 conditions on two condition attachment pages.
Were these the conditions that you were referring to that you read out to an offender and you take them through all of the conditions, in this case 17?
Dhinjal:
Yes, these are the conditions.
Wolfe:
Now, the date we see on page 1 of 5 is November 10, 2017. Can you see that?
Dhinjal:
Yes, I do.
Wolfe:
And that's the date that this order was signed?
Dhinjal:
That was the date that the order was signed and the order was ordered on November 10th, 2017.
Wolfe:
Okay. There appears to be a signature in a box on the bottom right below which is the phrase a clerk on behalf of the Honourable Madam Justice Holmes. Do you recognize that signature?
Dhinjal:
Yes, that's my signature.
Wolfe:
Now, to the left of that there's another box but inserted is the phrase declined to sign. Do you see that?
Dhinjal:
Yes.
Wolfe:
What does that mean?
Dhinjal:
The conditions are read to Mr. Fox and he refused to sign the document, declined to sign the order.
Wolfe:
Do you recall or is there a notation of the reason why Mr. Fox, according to this, declined to sign an order?
Dhinjal:
It's -- I can't remember why he declined to sign the order. It's usually they do decline to sign the order is because they don't agree with the conditions that are being read to them, or the conditions that are being ordered, but I can't recall hundred percent why he declined.
Wolfe:
I just want to take you back a bit earlier for clarification regarding your evidence. Do you satisfy yourself regarding identity of the offender before you engage or review the terms?
Dhinjal:
Yes. I would get them to provide their full name and their date of birth before proceeding with the conditions and what happened in court. It's normal practice for us -- for me to identify the individual to make sure that I have the right, correct person in front of me.
Wolfe:
Would you execute this document signing on behalf of the judge if identification was not satisfactory to your standard?
Dhinjal:
No, never. I can add to that if the person is not in front of me we have a procedure of saying left without signing. There's a provision for that. If the person is not in front of us, if they had medical issues, they couldn't appear to have the document read to them, we have to indicate that the person left without signing or that they -- they weren't able to be there, so that clerk will correctly reflect if the person was not in front of me. That's the only way I would be signing the document. Thank you.
Wolfe:
If we go over to the second page. It appears to be identical to the first, except it has no superimposed variation stamp on it. Does that appear to be correct to you?
Dhinjal:
Correct. Yes, correct.
Wolfe:
And then there's a French version on page 2 of 5, and then the terms or conditions read begin at page 3 of 5. Do you see that?
Dhinjal:
Yes, I do.
Wolfe:
If I could direct your attention, please, to condition number nine, there appears to be a phrase which has a line going through it with two initials. Can you explain that, please?
Dhinjal:
While I was reading the condition I noticed that it repeats, "and you must carry the written -- and carry the permission when you are outside the province." So I struck it out because it was just repeating, duplicating and then initialled that I struck it out. 'Cause you can see it's already repeated before that. It's just -- it was a typographical error and it was added again.
Wolfe:
All right. And then the balance of the conditions that carry over onto page 4. So do you actually read the conditions out a word at a time?
Dhinjal:
Yes. My practice is to read each condition out one at a time.
Wolfe:
Your interaction with the offender is it entirely face to face?
Dhinjal:
Yes.
Wolfe:
Page 6 apparently lists the series of bans that were imposed -- I'm sorry -- 5 of 5, 6 of 10. And then the -- page 7 of 10, is this referred to as a fly sheet, or am I correct in calling it that?
Dhinjal:
Yes, it's a fly sheet that's attached to the probation order.
Wolfe:
And what's the purpose of that?
Judge:
And we're on page?
Wolfe:
Seven of 10.
Judge:
Oh, seven of -- you've got it written on top there, page 7 of 10. Okay.
Wolfe:
Yes.
Wolfe:
What's the purpose of a fly sheet?
Dhinjal:
The purpose of a fly sheet is it just indicates -- it shows how changes can be made to a probation order. If the person fails to comply with conditions, and they're found in breach of a probation what -- what sentence they can receive. Any changes to personal information, say they change their name or address, how they would go about notifying the court.
Wolfe:
And you read this out as well?
Dhinjal:
Don't read it out word for word, but I will go over, if they need to change any condition how they can apply to change any condition. Failure to comply with the -- failure to comply with the conditions how -- if they are found in breach what sentence they may receive.
Wolfe:
Right.
Dhinjal:
But we usually provide this to the offender so they can take it away with them, and if they need to make any changes or -- they know how to do that.
Wolfe:
All right. If you're dealing with an offender who's in custody how exactly -- what's the environment for that? Are you in a room together or how does -- what's the physical layout, back in VLC, Vancouver Law Courts, in November of 2017, what transpire -- what's the physical setting for this exercise?
Dhinjal:
Physical setting, it would be like -- it would be like a room like this witness box and there will be, like, a screen and then the other -- the offender will be sitting on the other side of. So it's a room, so you imagine this like -- this witness box and then then you're sitting face to face to each other.
Wolfe:
Is there a screen between you or --
Dhinjal:
It's -- there is a screen.
Wolfe:
There is?
Dhinjal:
I'm confusing it with Surrey now 'cause I've been at Surrey for a year and a half. There definitely would be a screen there. I don't think it would be open. It's a room and the sheriffs will put the offenders from their -- from their area and then I would go through the other side, the sheriff's side and go into the room.
So there's like -- we'd be sitting opposite each other in the room. So they're like interview rooms but you have someone sitting opposite you.
Wolfe:
When you review the terms what's your practice regarding ensuring to yourself, or do you have to ensure to yourself that the offender understands the terms?
Dhinjal:
If I feel like they -- I would ask them do you understand the conditions and do you have any questions. I always end off after reading the conditions, if you -- have you understood the conditions and do you have any questions. And if they have no questions then I would take the assumption that they understood what I read to them.
Wolfe:
So with your signature appended to this probation order, does this indicate that you had complied with your practice regarding identification of the offender?
Dhinjal:
Correct.
Wolfe:
Does it indicate that you complied with your practice of reviewing the terms with the offender?
Dhinjal:
Yes.
Wolfe:
And so does that mean that to your satisfaction on that day an individual, Patrick Henry Fox, in relation to that court file number was before you and you reviewed those terms with that person?
Dhinjal:
Yes. I believe so.
Wolfe:
Now, some time has passed, we're now in August of 2019, and this is dated November, 2017. Do you recall anything of that person's physical appearance when you dealt with him?
Dhinjal:
No, I don't. But I don't have any memory of what they looked like but I do see Mr. Fox -- like, he looks familiar to me but I don't -- I don't recall him from that day.
Wolfe:
Okay.
Dhinjal:
I see so many faces. I don't remember accurately.
Wolfe:
Another series of numbers we see on page 1 under police file number, what's your understanding of what that series means?
Dhinjal:
Sorry, the police file number?
Wolfe:
Yes.
Dhinjal:
It's -- that's -- I don't -- we don't even deal with that. That's something the Crown would have put in is the location of the police that dealt with that file.
Wolfe:
So am I to understand that the material number for your reference is the court file number?
Dhinjal:
Correct.
Wolfe:
Those are my questions, Your Honour.
Judge:
Okay. Thank you. Mr. Fox, do you have any questions for this witness?
Fox:
No, I don't actually.
Judge:
Okay.
Fox:
But I do thank you for coming and I apologize for the inconvenience to you.
Judge:
Okay. Thank you. All right. Yes, thanks for coming today, Ms. Dhinjal.
Dhinjal:
Okay.
Judge:
You are free to go.
Dhinjal:
Thank you.
Judge:
All right. Thank you.
(WITNESS EXCUSED)
Fox:
Mr. Wolfe?
Wolfe:
Sir?
Fox:
May I kindly have more water?
Wolfe:
Of course.
Fox:
Thank you.
Judge:
Okay.
Wolfe:
So the Crown's next witness is the other court clerk, Your Honour. Could I step out and bring her in?
Judge:
Sure.
Wolfe:
Okay, thank you. This witness will swear.
DANIKA RAGUZ
a witness called for the Crown, sworn.
Clerk:
Please state your full name and spell your last name, for the record.
Raguz:
It's Danika Raguz, and it's spelled R-a-g-u-z.
Judge:
Thanks, Ms. Raguz. Just keep your voice nice and loud, okay. Of course, you know these things. You've been -- you've been through these proceedings, but obviously that microphone only records you. Thanks for coming.
EXAMINATION IN CHIEF BY MR. WOLFE:
Wolfe:
Witness, currently how are you employed?
Raguz:
I work at the Vancouver Supreme Court criminal registry desk, and I work there as the supervisor and also the justice of the peace as well.
Wolfe:
Yes. When you say supervisor, what do you supervise?
Raguz:
I supervise some staff.
Wolfe:
Yes.
Raguz:
At the criminal registry desk.
Wolfe:
Okay. Now, you've had your commission as a justice of the peace since, what, 2017; is that correct?
Raguz:
Yes. It was -- I was sworn in in August, 2017.
Wolfe:
Very well. Now, I'm going to direct your attention to an occasion from this year, February of 2019, when there was a variation of an order made, and you reviewed it with an individual whose name appears on it as Patrick Henry Fox. Are you familiar with an individual named Patrick Henry Fox?
Raguz:
Yes.
Wolfe:
Is that through your work as a JP and a supervisor at Vancouver Law Courts?
Raguz:
Yes, correct.
Wolfe:
And have you had -- do you recall having had personal interactions with the individual named Patrick Henry Fox?
Raguz:
Yes, I do.
Wolfe:
And so can you describe that person for the court? What does he -- not looking at anyone in particular, just from your memory if you could. Do you recall in your mind's eye, so to speak, Mr. Fox's appearance?
Raguz:
Yes, I do.
Wolfe:
Can you elicit that for us, please?
Raguz:
He's short --
Wolfe:
Yes.
Raguz:
-- and slim.
Wolfe:
Yes.
Raguz:
He wears glasses.
Wolfe:
Yes.
Raguz:
He has peppery hair.
Wolfe:
Yes.
Raguz:
So meaning black and white.
Wolfe:
Sort of like mine?
Raguz:
Yes.
Wolfe:
Mm-hmm. And?
Raguz:
Slim build.
Wolfe:
Mm-hmm. Would you recognize him if you saw him again?
Raguz:
Yes, I would.
Wolfe:
And if you would just look around the courtroom anywhere, everywhere, do you see him here today?
Raguz:
Yes, I do. He's in a red shirt, straight in front of me, on the right-hand side of yourself.
Wolfe:
Okay.
Judge:
I have that indication. Thanks.
Wolfe:
So if now can direct your attention, please, to February, 2019. Could I, please, have Exhibit 3 put to the witness.
Judge:
Exhibit 3 then. Okay, thanks.
Raguz:
Thank you.
Wolfe:
So this appears to be titled Variation of Order Adult. Am I correct in --
Raguz:
Yes, correct, sir.
Wolfe:
And we see in the upper right-hand corner Court File Number 6011:2178-2. That is the -- would that be the identifying number for a particular court file?
Raguz:
Yes, it would. And it's from the Vancouver Supreme Court.
Wolfe:
The VLC refers to Vancouver Law Courts?
Raguz:
Yes, it does, and also 6011 as well does too.
Wolfe:
That's registry identifier?
Raguz:
Yes.
Wolfe:
So we see the recitals beginning at -- beginning with as Patrick Henry Fox was bound by a probation order recently made on November 10, 2017, at Vancouver Law Courts, and whereas on February the 6th, 2019, by order of Judge H. Holmes the order was varied as follows. Order made, probation varied. There appear to be two conditions therefore that are -- that were varied. Am I reading that the correct way?
Raguz:
Yes, correct.
Wolfe:
And then -- then the particular variations are listed. Below that is the sentence or phrase, I read or have had read to me and understand the total of one amendment detail. And if we just consider the phrase for a moment and have you explain it. First, there appears to be a signature in the bottom right under the -- or above the phrase, the clerk of the court. Do you recognize that signature?
Raguz:
Yes, I do, sir.
Wolfe:
And whose is that?
Raguz:
It actually belongs to me, Danika Raguz.
Wolfe:
Now, why did you sign it? What was that signature indicating?
Raguz:
So I've actually signed it because the accused has signed it. So straight after the accused signs it then I sign it.
Wolfe:
Okay. And why do you sign it? What does that indicate?
Raguz:
To finalize the document.
Wolfe:
Yes.
Raguz:
And it also is acknowledgement that I've actually read the variation order to the accused, I've explained it and I've also told them that if they want to vary this order again it will be by a formal application to the court, and I've also advised the accused or the offender of the failure to comply with the variation order. And I've also asked the accused or the offender if they understand this all, and if they have any questions.
Wolfe:
So on February 6th, 2019, did you do all of those things before you signed? Yes?
Raguz:
Yes, I did that.
Wolfe:
Yes. Okay. Sorry, did I misstate something? I did say February 6th, 2019; did I not?
Raguz:
Yes, it was actually 2018 or was it -- 2019, that's correct.
Wolfe:
Okay. The second page, 2 of 3, appears to be a French version of the order; is that correct?
Raguz:
That's correct.
Wolfe:
Could I have Exhibit 2 put to the witness, please.
Wolfe:
Do you have Exhibit 2 there?
Raguz:
I do have Exhibit 2 here.
Wolfe:
So I just wanted to make sure we have the right thing here. So I'm going to direct your attention -- I'm just going to turn to it you'll see that there are 10 written annotations in the upper right-hand corner of this order of 10 pages. So they're numbered one and two and three and so -- I'm going to direct your attention, please, to page 8 of Exhibit 2, and here's something that I'm going to ask you to explain for the court.
You've just taken us through the variation order which appears to have appended to it a hand signature, correct?
Raguz:
Yes, correct.
Wolfe:
And yet we're looking at what appears to be the same order, variation of order. It has on it a stamp or mechanically imposed or electronically imposed signature. Is that your name there?
Raguz:
Yes, it is my name.
Wolfe:
And then to the left instead of the signature there's the phrase "Left without signing." Do you see that?
Raguz:
Yes.
Wolfe:
Can you explain -- can you reconcile that for the court?
Raguz:
Sure. So what ended up happening is he never came in on February 6th. So at the end of the day I had to distribute the variation order, and I put "Left without signing," and then I digitally signed it, and then he actually showed up the following day to sign it, so that was February 7th, 2019.
Judge:
Okay. Where am I looking at for that? I missed it. What page are you at?
Wolfe:
So I have actually two exhibits in front of --
Judge:
Yes.
Wolfe:
So I have page 8 of 10.
Judge:
Page 8 of 10, yes.
Wolfe:
Of Exhibit 2.
Raguz:
It's Exhibit 2.
Judge:
Got it. Yes. Okay.
Wolfe:
Your Honour will see there's an electronic -- an electronic signature on that one, and then a phrase "Left without signing." Does Your Honour see that?
Judge:
That -- yes.
Wolfe:
And then the witness previously gave evidence regarding her signature appearing and another signature appearing to the left.
Judge:
Yes.
Wolfe:
I was just asking her to reconcile the two.
Judge:
Okay.
Wolfe:
So her evidence, as I understood it, was --
Judge:
On February 6th you met with a person you knew to be Mr. Fox and he left without signing and then you --
Raguz:
It was actually February 7th.
Judge:
February 7th.
Raguz:
So he came in the following actually day. So usually what ends up happening is that individuals do not always know to come down --
Judge:
To the Registry.
Raguz:
-- to the Registry to sign a variation order.
Judge:
Yes.
Raguz:
So he did come the following day.
Judge:
Okay. But the one that was signed the following day is still dated February 6th, is that --
Raguz:
Yes.
Judge:
Okay.
Raguz:
It should have actually stated February 7th, 2019.
Judge:
Okay, thanks.
Wolfe:
And just looking at that signature then on the variation that has two signatures, were you present when that other signature was appended to it?
Raguz:
For the Exhibit 3?
Wolfe:
Yes. Yes?
Raguz:
Yes, I was present.
Wolfe:
And was it Mr. Fox who signed that in front of you?
Raguz:
Yes, it was Mr. Fox who signed it.
Wolfe:
Okay. The phrase "Left without signing," do you type that in or is it a drop down or what is it?
Raguz:
It's actually a drop down.
Wolfe:
So it's off a computer template?
Raguz:
Yes. From off actually JUSTIN.
Wolfe:
Okay. And JUSTIN is an electronic case management system?
Raguz:
Exactly.
Wolfe:
I appreciate I'm leading but I don't see that as being really a contentious issue.
Judge:
Yes. As a matter of fact you can lead on that. If there's any questions Mr. --
Wolfe:
Okay.
Judge:
-- Mr. Fox can ask them.
Wolfe:
All right.
Wolfe:
So on the variation order there is no indication -- it only lists the variation -- I'm sorry -- the terms that were -- or conditions that were varied, not all of them; is that typical?
Raguz:
Yes, correct.
Wolfe:
All right. And it also -- is it typical that a variation order does not list the offences for which the offender was convicted; am I correct on that?
Raguz:
Yes, correct, but when I do read a variation order --
Wolfe:
Yes
Raguz:
-- I tell them that the original document is still in effect, and I also give them a copy of that previous order. So I will staple the variation order on top so that they've got it, especially for in-persons.
Wolfe:
All right. So when you reviewed this order, the variation order with Mr. Fox, was that on an incustody or out of custody basis?
Raguz:
It was on an -- on an out of custody basis.
Wolfe:
Now, we see -- I just have some questions for you related to identification of a person bound by an order. The variation order that you reviewed names an individual, Patrick Henry Fox. There appears to be a DOB. Do you understand that to be date of birth?
Raguz:
Yes, I do, sir.
Wolfe:
And November 24th, '73. Do you -- do you take steps, invariably or not, to ascertain the identity of a person you're going -- you're dealing with?
Raguz:
Yes, I do, sir. So I will ask to see their picture ID and then I will also ask their date of birth and I will compare that to what's on the document for their date of birth.
Wolfe:
If a probationer is known to you, let us suppose because of multiple appearances and multiple applications, do you still discharge that exercise or do you do anything different?
Raguz:
Well, if I know them from before --
Wolfe:
Yes.
Raguz:
-- then I will not ask to see their identity because it's already been established.
Wolfe:
Yes. And in this case do you recall whether or not you asked Mr. Fox for ID?
Raguz:
I did ask for his ID because it was the first time I was encountering him.
Wolfe:
And is it your practice to -- or do you recall on this occasion reading the variation -- the varied conditions out loud to him?
Raguz:
Yes, I did read them out loud to him.
Wolfe:
And all your dealings on this occasion were face to face with Mr. Fox, were they? Your dealings with him entirely face to face?
Raguz:
Yes, they were face to face entirely.
Wolfe:
Okay. Those are my questions.
Judge:
Okay. Do you have any questions, Mr. Fox?
Fox:
No, I don't, Your Honour.
Judge:
Okay.
Fox:
But I thank you, Ms. Raguz, for coming today.
Judge:
Okay. Thank you. Thanks for coming.
Raguz:
Okay. Thank you.
Judge:
You're free to go.
Raguz:
Oh, thank you.
(WITNESS EXCUSED)
Wolfe:
Now, I'm going to have to make a phone call. I must say -- and this may or may not -- this will be news to Mr. Fox and not news to you I don't think. I'm never -- I'm not particularly adept at pacing my witnesses. I either go through them too quickly or too slowly.
Judge:
That's not a problem. We're around the time we break anyways, so why don't we take the morning break and I'll just come back when you -- when you call me.
Wolfe:
I'm going to -- I can tell Mr. Fox and Your Honour, the next witness and he's a phone call away should be the probation officer, Mr. Bhimji.
Fox:
What about Cowan, is he going to be -- Brandon Cowan? He was the probation officer for most of the time.
Wolfe:
No.
Fox:
I only reported to Bhimji two times.
Wolfe:
I understand.
Fox:
Okay.
Wolfe:
Okay.
Judge:
So it's Bhimji, is it?
Wolfe:
Yes.
Judge:
That's coming. Okay. I will just await a phone call then. We take a break and then finish off. Okay. Thanks.
(PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED FOR MORNING RECESS)
(PROCEEDINGS RECONVENED)
Judge:
How do we get the big courtroom anyway? It's just a draw -- luck of the draw. Mr. Fox, thanks.
Fox:
Thank you.
Wolfe:
Yes, Wolfe, initial B., for the Provincial Crown, Your Honour. The witness I thought I would call, Bhimji, is not in his office today. I've made arrangements to call a witness out of order. It won't affect, I think, the flow of the case all that much. It would be Constable Hawkins.
Judge:
Mm-hmm.
Wolfe:
And he's available at two.
Judge:
Two o'clock?
Wolfe:
Yes. Now, I'll outline for Mr. Fox's benefit, Hawkins deals with Mr. Fox the 4th of April. He's in the company of Constable Brown.
Judge:
He deals with him when?
Wolfe:
On the 4th of April when he goes to the border --
Judge:
Oh, 4th of April.
Wolfe:
-- to get Mr. Fox.
Judge:
Okay.
Wolfe:
So Hawkins' evidence, to a significant degree, relates to the voir dire on voluntariness. He doesn't obtain the warned statement from Mr. Fox, but he's involved in the arrest and the Charter and the transport. Part of -- part of his interaction with Mr. Fox is recorded and I have a transcript. Otherwise he'll be giving evidence viva voce about how he interacts with Mr. Fox, from the transport to the cells, to the point where Corporal Potts takes him in for an interview.
So some of his evidence is outside a voir dire. A good portion would, I think, would have to be, so it may be a little clumsy. I mean I have the transcripts and the recordings, so we can deal with that but it's not -- his evidence isn't as linear or as clean as it would be because of the voir dire aspect of it. Does that make sense?
Judge:
Yes. Okay. Okay. We'll deal with Constable Hawkins when we come, and part of his evidence, Mr. Fox, will be a voir dire with respect to a trial within a trial, with respect to the voluntariness of the statement.
Fox:
Mm-hmm.
Judge:
Okay. Okay. So I'll see you then at two o'clock then.
Wolfe:
Right. And I apologize for wasting an hour of court time. It's an inconvenience to you, the clerk, Mr. Fox, it's expensive and I'm not happy about that.
Judge:
Yes, no problem.
Wolfe:
But I'm wearing it and that's okay.
Judge:
It happens. All right, thanks. Okay, thank you, I'll see you at two.
(PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED FOR NOON RECESS)
(PROCEEDINGS RECONVENED)
Judge:
Okay, thanks. Mr. Fox is here. Okay. Mr. Wolfe, who do we have next?
Wolfe:
Constable Tyler Hawkins.
Judge:
Hawkins, that's right.
Wolfe:
H-a-w-k-i-n-s. And he's appearing on short notice. You'll see he's dressed in civilian clothes.
Judge:
Okay.
Wolfe:
I apologize as he -- for not appearing in uniform or business attire. He's actually working on something else.
Judge:
Not a problem. Okay.
Wolfe:
He also has -- he's able to attend tomorrow if we don't complete by about 3:45 today. I regret to advise the court that because he's appearing on short notice he's not available until 4:30 and I'm very sorry about that.
Judge:
Yes.
Wolfe:
But he can attend tomorrow if he doesn't complete today.
Judge:
If he doesn't finish today. Okay. All right. Hawkins then.
Wolfe:
I can go out and get him.
Judge:
Sure, unless the page works.
Wolfe:
Sure.
Judge:
I'm not sure if it does. Sometimes it does and sometimes it --
Wolfe:
Hawkins. This witness will affirm.
Clerk:
Thank you.
Judge:
Okay, thanks.
TYLER HAWKINS
a witness called for the Crown, affirmed.
Clerk:
Please state your name in full and spell your first and last name.
Hawkins:
Tyler Hawkins spelled T-y-l-e-r H-a-w-k-i-n-s.
Judge:
Thank you, constable. You can have a seat if it's more comfortable, thanks.
Hawkins:
Sure.
EXAMINATION IN CHIEF BY MR. WOLFE:
Wolfe:
Constable, I'd like you to take your mind back, please, to an investigation in which you were involved, that involved two different dates and two different areas and that investigation brings you in today. One is in relation to an incident that took place on March the 15th, 2019, at or near Surrey, and then also March 19th, 2019, at or near Vancouver. You had an involvement in relation to both those dates and the investigation. Do you recall you were involved?
Hawkins:
Yes, I do.
Wolfe:
And so I would ask, please, if you -- first we'll deal with some preliminary questions. You're ranked as a constable with the RCMP; is that correct?
Hawkins:
Yes.
Wolfe:
And you're with the Burnaby Detachment; is that correct?
Hawkins:
Yes.
Wolfe:
And on March 19th and 15th of 2019, in fact, throughout your investigation here were you so employed and on duty as a peace officer and a police officer?
Hawkins:
Yes, I was.
Wolfe:
Now, you were tasked with a particular investigation that involved one of your colleagues, Constable Kirsty Brown; is that correct?
Hawkins:
Yes, she's my partner.
Wolfe:
And was Brown involved in this investigation as well?
Hawkins:
Yes, she was.
Wolfe:
Now, what was the nature of the investigation or assignment that brings you into court today?
Hawkins:
Our Unit, myself and Constable Brown were assigned to investigate the alleged breach of probation.
Wolfe:
At the time -- in relation to which person or persons?
Hawkins:
Patrick Fox.
Wolfe:
And during the course of your investigation did you have personal dealings with the person you say named -- named -- is named Patrick Fox?
Hawkins:
Yes, I did.
Wolfe:
And can you describe Mr. Fox for us, his appearance, just from your mind's eye, if you had imagined him, please?
Hawkins:
So Patrick Fox would be a Caucasian male, maybe five-six, five-seven in height, thin build. He would have salt and pepper hair. He would be -- appear to be early 50s to mid-50s.
Wolfe:
Hair length, clean shaved, beard, mustache, anything like that?
Hawkins:
So he would have shorter hair, shorter than collar length and would be wearing glasses and clean shaven.
Fox:
I'm sorry?
Wolfe:
Just if you could elevate your voice just a bit there, Mr. Fox didn't --
Hawkins:
Sure. So which part?
Wolfe:
The tail-end.
Hawkins:
Okay. So salt and pepper hair, shorter than collar length.
Wolfe:
Yes.
Hawkins:
And glasses and clean shaven.
Wolfe:
Clean shaven, okay. Did you have personal dealings with that individual?
Hawkins:
Yes, I did.
Wolfe:
And would you recognize him if you saw him again?
Hawkins:
Yes, I would.
Wolfe:
And casting about the courtroom do you see him here today?
Hawkins:
Yes, I do.
Wolfe:
Could you, please, point that person out? Just for the record, could you perhaps identify an article of clothing?
Hawkins:
Sure. Patrick Fox is wearing a red sweater.
Judge:
I have the indication, thanks.
Wolfe:
So you say you were assigned to investigate a breach of probation. At the time of your assignment, your initial assignment, did you know the particular breach alleged?
Hawkins:
I'm trying to think -- the exact breach. The initial breach I believe that we were assigned to investigate on the 20th was a breach of Mr. Fox -- Patrick Fox entering the U.S.
Judge:
And if you have to refer to your notes, if you can't recall details.
Hawkins:
Sure. Do you mind, Your Honour?
Judge:
Then you're welcome to, if you just request that --
Wolfe:
I'll lead him through that formally if you want.
Judge:
Okay.
Wolfe:
So before you go to your notes, constable.
Hawkins:
Sure.
Wolfe:
With respect to my last question, have you exhausted your memory about the nature of the investigation?
Hawkins:
Your -- the nature of your question --
Wolfe:
Yes. The type of probation breach you were investigating?
Hawkins:
Yes.
Wolfe:
You -- you're looking at your notebook or written report assist you in determining what it was you were investigating?
Hawkins:
Yes, it would.
Wolfe:
May the witness do that, please?
Judge:
Yes, go ahead, please.
Hawkins:
Okay. So yes, I was -- my Unit was assigned to investigate the breach of Patrick Fox crossing to the U.S. from Canada.
Wolfe:
So how did your involvement develop and what were the steps that you took to conduct that investigation?
Hawkins:
So we were assigned on March 20th, is we took conduct of the file on March 20th, and the nature of our investigation was to determine if Patrick Fox had entered the U.S. and how he entered the U.S.
Wolfe:
So you received information from other sources that assisted you in that regard or did you not?
Hawkins:
Yes, we did.
Wolfe:
And what was the end result of the information that you received? What next steps did you take?
Hawkins:
So the end result of the investigation into Patrick Fox's movements were that on March 15th of 2019 Patrick Fox had gone down to the Blaine Peace Arch border crossing on the pedestrian side and had presented himself for entering.
Wolfe:
What did you do, if anything, with that piece of information?
Hawkins:
So that was the initial piece of information that we received, and then from there conducted further investigation to determine what was the nature of his visit, and what happened actually, was he allowed in, was he turned away. And as a result of further investigation we learned that he was actually detained at the border, and then he was taken into custody and transported to the Northwest Detention Centre in Tacoma.
Wolfe:
This is Tacoma, Washington in the United States?
Hawkins:
Tacoma, Washington, yes. Yes, Your Honour.
Wolfe:
What did you do with that information?
Hawkins:
Well, that information was then relayed back to our team and our superior in our Unit, so we that we actually had a location where Patrick Fox was now.
Wolfe:
Did you take any action as a consequence of that? You had information he was detained in Tacoma?
Hawkins:
Yes.
Wolfe:
And what did you do next?
Hawkins:
So with that information we touched base with our own CBSA which is our inboard services agency to advise in case they were unclear or they could not -- or they hadn't been updated to advise them of Patrick Fox's location. And we also -- I also reached out to Homeland Security officer who provided myself and my partner a document showing Patrick Fox's -- or sorry -- outlining Patrick Fox's interaction at the border.
Judge:
They provided what to Homeland Security?
Hawkins:
Homeland Security, yes, a document.
Judge:
A document, okay.
Hawkins:
Yes.
Wolfe:
Was that authored by anyone or --
Hawkins:
Yes, it was. It was offered by -- authored by Homeland Security Officer Geoffrey Obrist. And Your Honour, I should note that the document -- I emailed Homeland Security Officer or Deportation Officer Christopher Shields who provided me with the document that was authored by Officer Goeffrey Obrist.
Wolfe:
Okay.
Judge:
So how do you spell that, Geoffrey?
Hawkins:
O-b-r-i-s-t.
Judge:
Thanks.
Wolfe:
So with that document what do you do?
Hawkins:
With that document we now have -- well, we now have an interaction which is documented of Patrick Fox at the border. So now we have -- we begin our -- writing up our Crown to support charges.
Wolfe:
Okay. Did you become aware at some point whether or not a charge was approved or a warrant issued for his arrest out of British Columbia?
Hawkins:
Yes. We had a -- we had a charge approved for a breach of probation charge written by or authored by Patrick Fox's probation officer, as he failed to report to Probation on a scheduled day.
Wolfe:
So when you say charge approved authored are you -- just to be clear, was there a warrant in the first was issued for his arrest?
Hawkins:
Yes, there was. Yes.
Wolfe:
Did you take any action with respect to having the warrant executed? What did you do with the warrant in the first? What's your next step?
Hawkins:
So the next step for that warrant would be to attempt to execute that warrant and that was done when we attended the border to pick up -- or to take custody of Patrick Fox.
Wolfe:
When you say the border -- this may seem like a silly question but there's a B.C.-Alberta border, there's one with the Territories, there's one to the States. Which border are you talking about?
Hawkins:
So I'm referring to the Canada-United States border and it's down in Blaine -- sorry -- in -- the border of -- near Blaine, near Surrey. So down at the Peace Arch border.
Wolfe:
So you attend the Peace Arch border near Blaine and Surrey?
Hawkins:
Yes, I do. My partner and I drive down on April 4th, 2019.
Wolfe:
On that occasion -- we see you in civilian clothes today. On April 4th, 2019, when you go to that border with your colleague, Constable Brown, how are you dressed on that occasion?
Hawkins:
I was dressed in my -- my plain clothes uniform.
Wolfe:
And were you driving a marked or an unmarked car?
Hawkins:
We drove a marked police cruiser.
Wolfe:
Did you take any steps or were -- I mean just to ask you really, were there arrangements made between you and your colleague and U.S. authorities to interact or encounter Mr. Fox on the 4th of April?
Hawkins:
Yes. So on April 3rd, the day before, we had received an email from Officer Shields to advise that Patrick Fox would be, I guess, deported the follow day and that he was advising us out of courtesy so that we could meet up -- so that we could take custody of Patrick Fox at the border.
Wolfe:
So did you do that then?
Hawkins:
Yes, we did.
Wolfe:
Did you --
Hawkins:
Yes, we did.
Wolfe:
So that took place on the 4th or the 3rd?
Hawkins:
April 4th.
Wolfe:
April 4th.
Hawkins:
So the 3rd was the email advising the 4th was the day that we drove down to the Peace Arch border.
Wolfe:
What time did you get there and where do you go exactly?
Hawkins:
I'm just going to refer to my notes for the exact timing. So we departed at 1015 hours from the Detachment, the Burnaby Detachment, and we arrived at 1050 hours and that's on the Canadian side at the CBSA Office.
Wolfe:
Well, what do you and Constable Brown do when you get to the Canadian side of the CBSA Office?
Hawkins:
So we have -- in front of us beside our vehicle was the ICE Officer Berg's vehicle. In the back of that vehicle was Patrick Fox. You know, a brief introduction and then we took custody of Patrick Fox.
Wolfe:
You referred to a vehicle described as an ICE vehicle. What is ICE?
Hawkins:
So that would be their Immigration Customs and Enforcement. So I believe it was a black vehicle. It may have been unmarked. And by vehicle I mean black SUV.
Wolfe:
And was this -- this Immigration, Customs and Enforcement a part of Homeland Security or is this --
Hawkins:
Yes, it is. Yes, it is.
Wolfe:
So when you say you took custody of Patrick Fox why don't you pick up from there and tell us exactly who -- who took custody of Mr. Fox and what were the next things that happened?
Hawkins:
So I myself took custody of Patrick Fox at 1058 hours, so about eight minutes after we had arrived. So I retrieved Fox from the vehicle, the ICE officer's vehicle, and searched him at the location. Then I placed him in handcuffs and brought him back to our marked vehicle which was 10 or 15 feet away and placed him in the back seat.
Wolfe:
Did you identify yourself?
Hawkins:
Yes, I did.
Wolfe:
You said you were not wearing a uniform?
Hawkins:
Yes.
Wolfe:
What did you -- how did you identify yourself?
Hawkins:
As Constable Tyler Hawkins, wearing a plain clothes uniform and I had my police vest on.
Wolfe:
At this point then you're interacting directly and personally with Mr. Fox?
Hawkins:
Yes and no.
Wolfe:
When you search him in cuffs -- put him in cuffs are you affecting an arrest at that point, and if so what do you say to him?
Hawkins:
So at that point initiated the arrest script for Patrick Fox which was audio recorded.
Wolfe:
Okay. I think at this juncture it's probably best to enter into a voir dire now. Because the interactions would become, I think, relevant to voluntariness.
Judge:
Okay. So Madam Registrar, we're entering a voir dire with respect to the statement.
Clerk:
Yes, Your Honour.
EXAMINATION IN CHIEF ON VOIR DIRE BY MR. WOLFE:
Wolfe:
So the arrest script that you referred to and the arrest was recorded?
Hawkins:
Yes, it was.
Wolfe:
And who made that recording?
Hawkins:
I made the recording.
Wolfe:
And have you had an opportunity to listen to the recording since you made it?
Hawkins:
Yes, I have.
Wolfe:
And is that the entire recording?
Hawkins:
I've heard the whole thing, yes.
Wolfe:
And was there a transcript made of that recording?
Hawkins:
Yes, there was.
Wolfe:
And have you reviewed the transcript in relation to the recording?
Hawkins:
Yes, I have.
Wolfe:
And what do you say about the fairness and accuracy of the transcript in relation to the recording made?
Hawkins:
It's completely accurate.
Wolfe:
Your Honour, at this point I'm going to play that recording. I have a copy of the -- of the transcript. There's one to mark as an exhibit on the voir dire, and another copy for you to follow.
Clerk:
Is one being [indiscernible].
Wolfe:
They're all -- the original is electronic so everything is, like, duplicate original. It doesn't matter which one you file.
Judge:
Okay. Thank you.
Wolfe:
So if I may then I'm going to play --
Judge:
This is Exhibit A on the voir dire. Thanks.
Hawkins:
Can I grab my water here?
Wolfe:
Sure, absolutely. I'll start this, Your Honour, and play through its entirety. I propose we follow the transcript. If it isn't loud enough for anyone to hear, Mr. Fox or yourself, please let me know and I'll try and increase the volume.
Judge:
Okay. Thanks.
(AUDIO/VIDEO BEING PLAYED)
(AUDIO/VIDEO STOPPED)
Wolfe:
So constable, is that the recording that you made on April 4th?
Hawkins:
Yes, it is.
Wolfe:
Do you recognize the voices heard on that recording?
Hawkins:
Yes, I do.
Wolfe:
Can you tell us whose voice we hear first?
Hawkins:
You hear my voice.
Wolfe:
There's a second voice heard, whose voice is that?
Hawkins:
Patrick Fox.
Wolfe:
There's a third voice heard towards the end.
Hawkins:
That's my partner, Kirsty Brown.
Wolfe:
Now, what were the circumstances and in the physical proximity or where was Mr. -- sorry, I'll start that again.
When this recording is being made what's the position of the bodies here?
Hawkins:
So Patrick Fox is sitting in the back seat of the marked PC and I'm standing up just outside the door, and my proximity to him would be within two to three feet.
Wolfe:
Two to three?
Hawkins:
Within two to three feet.
Wolfe:
Okay. Where is Brown?
Hawkins:
She's beside me. I'm not sure which side.
Wolfe:
You're in civilian clothes. Are you wearing a sidearm?
Hawkins:
Yes, I am.
Wolfe:
Is it visible or not?
Hawkins:
It is -- yes, it's above -- outside the pant.
Wolfe:
At this point is Mr. Fox in handcuffs or not in handcuffs?
Hawkins:
He's in handcuffs still.
Wolfe:
You say he's in the back seat of the car. Is the window down or the door open or how is --
Hawkins:
I believe the door was open.
Wolfe:
When you were interacting with him there did he appear to understand what you were relating to him?
Hawkins:
Yes, he did.
Wolfe:
The recording comes to an end, we've heard. Why -- why does it come to an end, what happens? Why does it end?
Hawkins:
It ends because I press stop on it because the arrest script has been -- has been read thorough -- thoroughly, sorry.
Wolfe:
Okay. What happens next?
Hawkins:
At that point Mr. Fox in the back seat of the marked PC and along with his effects which are now in our trunk, we depart back for Burnaby Detachment.
Wolfe:
When you were taking control and custody of Mr. Fox from the American authorities did they give you any items to transport that appeared to belonging to Mr. Fox?
Hawkins:
All of his effects that came with him.
Wolfe:
What time did you arrive at the -- sorry -- let me back up for a second. You're under -- you're now transporting and you're going back to Burnaby Detachment. We've just heard a recording of an interaction between -- principally between yourself and Mr. Fox. Were there interactions on the drive back to the Detachment, between yourself and Mr. Fox?
Hawkins:
I asked Patrick Fox twice if he was doing okay in the back and he responded, "Yes," or "I'm fine".
Wolfe:
I'm sorry, his response was?
Hawkins:
That he was "Okay, yes, I'm okay, I'm fine." And they were on two separate occasions, so not back to back but on the drive.
Wolfe:
Okay. Were there any stops along the way?
Hawkins:
No, there were not.
Wolfe:
Any complaints from Mr. Fox regarding anything at all, food, water or bathroom break, car's too fast and car sick, was there anything at all?
Hawkins:
No.
Wolfe:
Did he remain in handcuffs on the trip back?
Hawkins:
Yes, he did.
Wolfe:
At any time did he complain about the handcuffs being too loose or too tight or painful?
Hawkins:
No, he did not.
Wolfe:
We heard the recording and your tone of voice and Mr. Fox's tone of voice captured on that. The interactions you had on the trip back with him, can you describe, please, for us to the best of your memory your demeanour and tone of voice interacting with him on the drive back?
Hawkins:
Yes. My demeanour and tone of voice interacting with Patrick Fox would have been the same as when I was reading the arrest script.
Wolfe:
What time do you get back to the Burnaby Detachment?
Hawkins:
We arrived back at 1155 hours, back to the Detachment.
Wolfe:
When you get back to Burnaby Detachment do you advise him what's going to take place next?
Hawkins:
Yes, while he's brought into the cells to be processed.
Wolfe:
Okay. Who brings him there?
Hawkins:
I bring him into the cells. So he's -- the vehicle's parked in the secure bay and simply get him out of the back seat and bring him in.
Wolfe:
When you say process what do you mean?
Hawkins:
So process encompasses sorting out Mr. Fox's effects, doing another search, removing his handcuffs. Processing also involves asking Mr. Fox if he wishes to speak to counsel.
Wolfe:
Did you do that?
Hawkins:
Which I did, yes.
Wolfe:
And what time did you do that, do you recall or --
Hawkins:
And so just -- I'm looking at my notes here and at 12:05 I began the processing so it would have been shortly after that he was -- his effects were, you know, on the counter and his shoes were removed. At that point within several minutes we would have been asking Mr. Fox if he wished to speak to counsel again.
Wolfe:
And did he reply?
Hawkins:
He replied no.
Judge:
He said no?
Hawkins:
He said no.
Wolfe:
The processing, you said sorting effects and removing handcuffs. What else do you do as part of that process?
Hawkins:
So that's one section of our cell area. After that's completed Mr. Fox was brought into the fingerprint and photograph room where he was then fingerprinted and photographed.
Wolfe:
Who does that?
Hawkins:
I did that.
Wolfe:
Can you describe for us, please, the manner with which you interacted with Mr. Fox, your voice, demeanour?
Hawkins:
My voice and demeanour would have been unchanged since when I first met Mr. Fox, and my tone of voice would have been the same when speaking now to Mr. Fox.
Wolfe:
Was he voicing any complaint to you regarding being processed?
Hawkins:
No.
Wolfe:
Do you know how long that particular process took place?
Hawkins:
Yes. From the arrival -- so when he was first brought in, so we'll say it's at 1205 hours when I began processing Mr. Fox.
Wolfe:
Mm-hmm.
Hawkins:
I completed the processing and placed Mr. Fox in his cell at 1310 hours. So 55 minutes duration. Sorry, yes, the defendant.
Judge:
You gave your -- you gave the arrival time. I just -- I think I missed it. What was the arrival time back at the station?
Hawkins:
So Your Honour, arrival time was --
Wolfe:
Which one? 12:05. He gets to the Detachment at 12:05.
Hawkins:
11:55 arrival.
Judge:
11:55 arrival.
Hawkins:
12:05 processing.
Judge:
Processing.
Hawkins:
And 1310.
Wolfe:
Is that satisfactory, Your Honour?
Judge:
Yes. Thank you.
Wolfe:
So you put him into a cell at 1310 hours; if I have that right?
Hawkins:
Yes. Yes.
Wolfe:
Do you interact with him after that?
Hawkins:
No, I don't.
Wolfe:
That's your final hand-off so to speak?
Hawkins:
Yes, it is.
Wolfe:
Do you become aware that Constable -- Corporal Jason Potts interviews Mr. Fox?
Hawkins:
Yes, I do.
Wolfe:
Did you have any role in that?
Hawkins:
So I was in the monitor room.
Wolfe:
Okay. Did that monitoring of the interview, did that put you into touch or contact with Mr. Fox?
Hawkins:
No. No.
Wolfe:
At any time in your dealings -- I'm not directing your attention to the recording, the recording is a recording. I'm directing your attention to your interaction with Mr. Fox outside of the recording, however brief it may have been or not brief, prior to the recording and after the recording. Are you with me so far?
Hawkins:
I'm with you.
Wolfe:
Okay. During those time periods did you offer any hope of advantage --
Hawkins:
No, I did not.
Wolfe:
-- to Mr. Fox? Did you try -- did you attempt to instill any fear or prejudice?
Hawkins:
No.
Wolfe:
Did you make any offers --
Hawkins:
No.
Wolfe:
-- or threats or promises?
Hawkins:
No, I did not.
Wolfe:
Were there any inducements made by you to Mr. Fox to comply or give a statement or cooperate?
Hawkins:
No, I didn't make any.
Wolfe:
Let me put this in another way just so we understand ourselves. Do you know the phrase quid pro quo, kind of you scratch my back, I scratch yours?
Hawkins:
Yes.
Wolfe:
Anything like that between you and Fox?
Hawkins:
Absolutely not.
Wolfe:
Okay. Was there any attempt on your part to have him doubt his memory about any event that he might be questioned on?
Hawkins:
No.
Wolfe:
Were there any attempts by you to trick him into providing a statement or saying anything that might incriminate him?
Hawkins:
No.
Wolfe:
Did you try tricking him at all?
Hawkins:
No.
Wolfe:
At any time did you -- I'll rephrase this in a more positive sense. During your interaction with him -- again, not on the recording -- did he appear to relate to you, as you saw it, in a responsive way? In other words, did he appear to understand what you were doing, whether it was when you were processing him or putting him in the cell?
Hawkins:
Yes, he did.
Wolfe:
At any time did he voice any complaints about anything, whether it was a physical illness or a mental illness or being cold or hungry, any complaints at all?
Hawkins:
No.
Wolfe:
At any time did he -- well, I'll phrase it this way. Does he appear to be alert whenever you're dealing with him?
Hawkins:
Yes, he does.
Wolfe:
Throughout the duration that you dealt with him and just using the recording as a foundation or template regarding your demeanour, on those occasions not recorded in your interacting with him, how do you describe your demeanour or approach in dealing with him?
Hawkins:
My demeanour and approach with Mr. Fox would have been very straightforward, professional and to the point.
Wolfe:
Throughout your dealings with him when you get to the Detachment does he stay in cuffs?
Hawkins:
The cuffs were removed once he's inside the cells, and by cells I mean the processing area.
Wolfe:
So before it's in the little bitty cell the cuffs are off?
Hawkins:
Yes. So when he's brought in from the secure bay, once he's inside the cuffs were then removed.
Wolfe:
Do they ever go back on?
Hawkins:
No, they don't.
Wolfe:
Sort of in your hands about how you'd like to deal with this, Your Honour. I don't think I have any more questions of this witness on the voir dire related to the statement. I would have some questions to him outside of the voir dire. Do you think it makes sense for Mr. Fox to crossexamine him within the voir dire rather than -- I think that's the better approach, and then we could end the voir dire in relation to Constable Hawkins, and then I would have a few more questions.
Judge:
Okay. Yes. Mr. Fox, we're in a voir dire. Do you have any questions with respect to this -- for this witness on the issue relating to the statement?
Fox:
In -- you're just referring to the voluntariness of the statement, right?
Judge:
Voluntariness, yes.
Fox:
No.
Judge:
Okay. Thank you. All right. Mr. Wolfe, you can -- you're allowed to exit the voir dire at this point.
Wolfe:
For this witness, I do. Yes.
Judge:
Okay. Let's exit the voir dire for this witness' evidence. Madam Registrar, we're back on the trial proper with respect to Constable Hawkins' evidence, okay.
Clerk:
Yes, Your Honour. I just want to confirm are we ending this voir dire or just suspending it?
Judge:
The voir dire is still -- still open, suspended.
Clerk:
Suspended. Thank you.
Judge:
Okay. But this next part of his evidence will be on the trial proper.
Wolfe:
Thank you.
EXAMINATION IN CHIEF BY MR. WOLFE, CONTINUING:
Wolfe:
All right. Constable, you -- as a sort of demonstrative aid, I understand that you obtained a satellite photo depicting the Peace Arch border area; is that correct?
Hawkins:
Yes, I did.
Wolfe:
You made this -- you acquired it yourself?
Hawkins:
Yes.
Wolfe:
I'm not suggesting that you did it from scratch. Where did you source it?
Hawkins:
I acquired it from Google. So satellite of Google Maps.
Wolfe:
Okay. So I'm going to show this to the witness and ask if he recognizes this.
Hawkins:
Yes.
Wolfe:
Is that the one that you did?
Hawkins:
Yes.
Wolfe:
Crown says that this is being offered as demonstrative evidence to assist the court. The weight attached to it probably is not -- it's something for argument at the end of the day, but it would be relevant because it depicts the area and it was --
Judge:
This is the area of the border?
Wolfe:
Yes, that's right.
Hawkins:
Yes, Your Honour.
Judge:
It's a Google Map printout.
Hawkins:
Yes.
Judge:
Okay.
Hawkins:
So I wish to explain --
Judge:
Sure.
Hawkins:
The map itself is just a -- it's a screenshot from Google Maps.
Judge:
Google Earth.
Hawkins:
Yeah -- well, Google Maps I believe.
Judge:
Google Maps.
Hawkins:
It's a satellite so it has -- it has --
Wolfe:
That's for the Judge.
Hawkins:
You can see the border with the Canada and U.S. in writing on it, and on the bottom right corner -- at the very bottom right corner there's a 50 metre line. It has the words 50 metres and then it has a white line and that white line goes from the -- that small indent all the way to the end of the -- of the colour.
Judge:
So the bottom right --
Hawkins:
Yeah, the very bottom -- bottom --
Judge:
Which way are you holding onto your -- I've got to orient it so…
Hawkins:
Just -- I should have put a north, south on it. It's just oriented with Google at the bottom centre.
Judge:
Yes, Google's at the bottom left. That's the -- that's south, is it?
Hawkins:
Yes. So that's -- U.S. is what you see at the very bottom and then Canada would be on top.
Judge:
Yes.
Hawkins:
And in the centre you can see the line -- faint line going across which says Canada and underneath U.S., and that's the actual border, geographical border, and it actually goes directly through the Peace Arch which you can see which is labelled Peace Arch.
Judge:
Okay.
Hawkins:
So I created this map just for my own -- at the time just for my own understanding of what it looks like, what does a hundred metres look like with respect to the condition.
Judge:
Okay.
Hawkins:
So what I did was I used, as accurate to this map, to that scale that's in the corner, I used that measurement to create that -- I guess that index that's in the white which I created in paint by drawing straight lines and showing the distances.
Judge:
Okay.
Wolfe:
Is there any objection to having this marked as an exhibit?
Judge:
No, it's a -- Mr. Fox, do you have any objection to this document going in?
Fox:
No, and in fact, this helps my case a lot, I would like it to be.
Judge:
Sure. Okay. We'll mark that then Exhibit 4 on the trial.
Fox:
I can keep this, right?
Wolfe:
Yes.
Judge:
This is a Google Map, overhead view of the border.
Wolfe:
Your Honour, while the voir dire is only suspended, out of -- so I don't forget anything, I do wish to make it clear that I would be seeking to have the recording of -- it's too early, but marked as an exhibit.
Judge:
Yes. The recording -- the actual CD --
Wolfe:
Yes.
Judge:
-- can be Exhibit B on that voir dire.
Wolfe:
A is the transcript, correct?
Clerk:
Yes.
Judge:
A is the transcript.
Wolfe:
And what I'm going to do at this point is -- since there are no questions on the voir dire, I'm going to hand over the disk to Madam Registrar now to have it marked.
Judge:
Okay.
Wolfe:
I apologize, and the sleeve for it if --
Wolfe:
If you'll just bear with me a moment. I just want to review my notes, please.
Judge:
Sure.
Wolfe:
If I can take you to Exhibit 4 for a moment, constable.
Judge:
If the witness could be handed Exhibit 4. Thank you, Madam Registrar.
Wolfe:
You gave evidence earlier of essentially a meeting point with U.S. authorities to take control and custody of Mr. Fox?
Hawkins:
Yes.
Wolfe:
Can you, if the court will permit it, can you mark an X where you were located when you took control of Mr. Fox?
Hawkins:
Yes. So it's going to be --
Wolfe:
I'll give you a red pen, if there's no objection to that, and you can mark it with an X and indicate --
Judge:
This map will be where you took custody of Mr. Fox.
Wolfe:
And once you do that if you'd be kind enough, please, to show His Honour of where that is so that he can very clearly see.
Hawkins:
[Indiscernible].
Wolfe:
[Indiscernible].
Hawkins:
Yeah, yeah, fair enough, I'll put that.
Wolfe:
You'll have to describe what the red mark -- put an arrow linking it up so there's a clear record of what we're doing here.
Hawkins:
Sure. So do you want me to read what I wrote there? Sure, yeah.
Wolfe:
Sure. And if you would be kind to read it out, please, for the record --
Hawkins:
Sure.
Wolfe:
-- and then just indicate what [indiscernible].
Hawkins:
Sure.
Wolfe:
And also so that Mr. Fox can see it.
Hawkins:
Yeah.
Wolfe:
If Mr. Sheriff is good enough to --
Judge:
Well, we'll pass the exhibit around just people can mark their own copies.
Hawkins:
Okay. Your Honour, so the location of where myself and Constable Brown took custody of Patrick Fox from ICE Officer Berg is just at the CBSA Canadian side.
Judge:
Okay.
Hawkins:
So the X is marked near the top of the page. You see a brown horizontal -- it's actually the roof of where border -- where you go through in your vehicle, where the border guards are.
Judge:
Okay.
Hawkins:
So it's just to the left in that grey building which is a vertical building. And you can see that there's -- there will be an X near the top of that grey building.
Judge:
Okay.
Hawkins:
And what I've written was location where Constable Hawkins took custody of Patrick Fox, April 4th, 2019.
Judge:
Okay, thanks. Thank you.
Wolfe:
When you were dealing with U.S. authorities did -- regarding the effects that you got from U.S. authorities did -- did you get any -- any that were specifically related to the Province of British Columbia?
Hawkins:
Yes, I did. We were handed the British Columbia driver's licence for Patrick Fox.
Wolfe:
And what did you do with that?
Hawkins:
That was taken into Patrick Fox's effects.
Wolfe:
Okay. And ultimately did you keep it or where did it go?
Hawkins:
No, that would be given back with him when he was sent off to court in his effects with the sheriffs.
Wolfe:
Okay. And were any copies of it made or some such?
Hawkins:
So the day -- so April 3rd was the day that we received the email from constable -- or sorry -- Officer Shields advising that the following day Patrick Fox would be brought to the border --
Wolfe:
Mm-hmm.
Hawkins:
-- to -- to make the arrangements to meet up.
Wolfe:
Yes.
Hawkins:
At that time it was an email attachment that had a coloured photocopy of Patrick Fox's B.C. DL which is the same one we received.
Wolfe:
Did you compare the actual DL certificate with the photocopy?
Hawkins:
Yes. Yes.
Wolfe:
And were they identical?
Hawkins:
It's the same one, yes.
Wolfe:
So I'm going to produce this to the witness.
Hawkins:
Yes.
Wolfe:
And does that appear to be a copy of what you received electronically?
Hawkins:
Yes, it is.
Wolfe:
I'm seeking to have this marked as an exhibit.
Judge:
Okay.
Wolfe:
Any issue?
Fox:
No.
Wolfe:
Okay. You keep that one. So that will be Exhibit 5 then, Your Honour.
Judge:
Exhibit 5, the copy of a driver's licence.
Clerk:
Exhibit 5.
Judge:
Five.
Wolfe:
I believe those are my questions, Your Honour.
Judge:
Okay. Thank you. Mr. Fox, do you have any questions in general for this witness?
Fox:
Yes. Yes, I do.
Judge:
Okay.
Fox:
First, may I confer with Mr. Wolfe for just one moment?
Judge:
And the reason I'm -- Madam Registrar and Mr. Sheriff, the reason I'm not taking a break is I understand you've got to leave at what time?
Hawkins:
3:45, Your Honour.
Judge:
3:45. If you need a switch-off or anything now. You're okay.
Sheriff:
Thank you, Your Honour.
Judge:
All right. Yes, go ahead, Mr. Fox.
Fox:
Would it be preferable to leave this for tomorrow morning or should we proceed with it now?
Judge:
Proceed with?
Fox:
Oh, with my cross of --
Judge:
No, no, I think you should proceed. You've got --
Fox:
Okay.
Judge:
-- you've got a good half an hour anyway.
Fox:
Sure.
Judge:
Okay. Go ahead.
Fox:
May I just ask one question of Mr. Wolfe?
Judge:
What did you want to ask Mr. Wolfe?
Fox:
Regarding certain disclosure material. I'm wondering if he has certain items.
Wolfe:
What do you need?
Fox:
My mugshot.
Judge:
Oh. 'Cause you don't have any of those items?
Fox:
The booking sheet photo.
Wolfe:
Oh. It's downstairs, I reckon.
Fox:
Okay. As long as --
Wolfe:
But no, no, but do you need it?
Fox:
Well, no, no. It's just I wanted to ask the constable about --
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY THE ACCUSED:
Fox:
When you were talking about -- when you were describing me from memory the day of my arrest, you had said that I was clean-shaven?
Hawkins:
I might have misunderstood what he was asking me. You weren't clean-shaven. You had stubble on your face.
Fox:
I see. So --
Hawkins:
Yeah.
Fox:
-- was it your understanding then that Crown was asking you to describe what I looked like right now?
Hawkins:
I believe so. So I did make that mistake, but yes, you were --
Fox:
Okay.
Hawkins:
-- you had stubble on your face.
Fox:
All right. Well, a beard.
Hawkins:
Beard. Okay.
Fox:
Now, in your testimony earlier you had said that I had presented myself for entry. Can you clarify who you mean I presented myself to? Not specifically which person but which agency or which government, which country?
Hawkins:
So you had gone down and --
Judge:
And this is just your understanding from information you received.
Hawkins:
Exactly. This is through the course of the investigation, through the phone calls and emails to determine Mr. Fox's whereabouts.
Judge:
Okay.
Hawkins:
I was advised that you had walked and presented yourself at the U.S. side, at the primary pedestrian crossing.
Fox:
Okay. So I just want to be clear. You were referring to me presenting myself to the U.S. authorities, not presenting myself to the Canadian authorities or CBSA?
Hawkins:
No. I'm referring to you presenting --
Fox:
Okay.
Hawkins:
-- yourself at the U.S. side.
Fox:
Do you have any knowledge of me interacting with CBSA on March 15th, 2019?
Hawkins:
I don't right now, no.
Fox:
Okay. You had also made reference to a document you had received from the Department of Homeland Security -- a report I think it was or some document. Do you know -- was that what they call an I-213?
Hawkins:
Yes, it was.
Fox:
Okay.
Hawkins:
Yes.
Fox:
I'm quite familiar with that type of report. And you had also mentioned about a warrant that was issued for my arrest up here in Canada?
Hawkins:
Yes.
Fox:
Would you happen to know the exact date that that warrant was issued?
Hawkins:
Yes. If you just --
Fox:
Sure.
Hawkins:
I can refer Your Honour to the exact --
Judge:
If you're not sure.
Hawkins:
I believe it's in this note here. So on March 25th, 2019 --
Fox:
Mm-hmm.
Hawkins:
-- at 1300 hours I confirmed that the breach of probation charge which is the failing to report.
Judge:
March 25th.
Hawkins:
March 25th.
Judge:
Okay. 25th you confirmed that -- okay.
Hawkins:
Sorry, report to the probation officer as directed on March 19th --
Fox:
Mm-hmm.
Hawkins:
-- had been submitted by the probation officer, and the information had been sworn and the warrant was active on JUSTIN or police for database. On March 26th we were advised that the warrant was not active on CPIC.
Fox:
Okay. So the warrant was actually issued or approved I guess by the court on --
Hawkins:
It was sworn on the 25th.
Fox:
25th, okay.
Hawkins:
Yes, it was.
Fox:
And did you contribute any statements or declarations in support of that warrant or --
Hawkins:
No.
Fox:
Did you happen to know who did?
Hawkins:
No.
Fox:
Oh, interesting.
Hawkins:
It was issued by the probation officer.
Fox:
Okay. Now, I understand that you were assigned to the case or the case was assigned to you, whatever the proper terminology would be, on March 20th you said, right?
Hawkins:
March 20th, yes.
Fox:
Okay. And there was a lot of talk earlier about the specific details of my arrest on April 4th, and then yours and Constable Brown's handling of me and the interactions that may or may not have occurred, between Peace Arch and getting back to the Burnaby Detachment.
Do you recall or in your recollection was I at any point belligerent or difficult, hostile? No, okay.
Hawkins:
No. Absolutely not.
Fox:
Did I seem in any way threatened or intimidated by yourself or by Constable Brown?
Hawkins:
I don't believe so, no.
Fox:
Good, good. Now, I understand that you have been in contact with the U.S. authorities regarding -- requesting some CCTV video footage of me at the border?
Hawkins:
Yes.
Fox:
Do you happen to remember when you first requested that from them?
Hawkins:
First request --
Judge:
You're referring to --
Hawkins:
I don't -- I don't know if I have it in -- that exact footage request here written down. I know it's in my notebook proper, like where my point form is which is in my notes but --
Judge:
Do you have your notebook here?
Hawkins:
I do have the notebook here, yes.
Judge:
Okay.
Hawkins:
If you don't mind.
Judge:
No, go ahead. You're looking for a date basically.
Hawkins:
Yeah. I am, yes. Yes, I have a date, Your Honour. So my first -- my first attempt to contact the person in charge of that was on March 25th.
Fox:
March 25th?
Hawkins:
2019, March 25th.
Fox:
Now, would that be the O'Dell -- I think his name was or --
Hawkins:
Yes.
Fox:
Okay. But prior to that was there any communication with somebody else from CBP or Homeland Security and then they had referred you to that party?
Hawkins:
Yes. Rod was a referral --
Fox:
Right.
Hawkins:
-- as he was the one in charge of that.
Fox:
Right. And you spoke with him on the 25th, but I believe that there was another communication just before that, wasn't there?
Hawkins:
Let me check.
Judge:
When you say Rod is that the same person as O'Dell?
Hawkins:
Yes, his name is Rod O'Dell.
Judge:
Rod O'Dell.
Hawkins:
He's the paralegal specialist I think with Border Patrol.
Judge:
Okay.
Fox:
I believe it might have been with a Ginnefer Shaw?
Hawkins:
Oh, Ginnefer Shaw, yes, Officer Shaw. Yes.
Fox:
Do you remember what the date --
Judge:
So prior to trying Rod O'Dell you had communications with a woman named Ginnefer Shaw?
Hawkins:
Yes.
Judge:
Okay.
Hawkins:
Almost -- yes. Ginnefer Shaw was the first person in the initial course of the investigation whom at Border Patrol who I contacted to inquire into Patrick Fox's whereabouts.
Fox:
Okay. So am I correct then in saying that in that email communication there was some talk of possibly obtaining the CCTV video footage, or I guess more specifically what I'm asking is was there a request by you in that communication with her on March 21st to possibly obtain such CCTV video footage?
Hawkins:
I believe I asked her first, yes.
Fox:
Okay.
Hawkins:
Or if she could put me in touch with someone who could assist with that.
Fox:
Right.
Hawkins:
Yes.
Fox:
But the critical part being that that was on March 21st?
Hawkins:
I don't have the emails printed off, so I don't -- I can't verify that.
Fox:
That's okay. We're in luck, Mr. Wolfe does.
Hawkins:
Okay.
Fox:
Or can we just assume that is correct?
Wolfe:
No.
Fox:
Okay.
Judge:
You don't have a copy of it, do you?
Fox:
No. I only have electronic stuff and that's on the laptop at the jail.
Judge:
Okay. So you're suggesting essentially, Mr. Fox, that there was a March 21st email to Ms. Shaw that inquired about obtaining the CCTV footage?
Fox:
Correct.
Judge:
All right. And you just want the witness to confirm whether that was true or not?
Fox:
Yes.
Judge:
Okay.
Hawkins:
Okay. Your Honour?
Judge:
Yes.
Hawkins:
In my -- in the narrative here. So on March 21st in speaking with Officer Shaw -- I don't have the exact time but I do have -- through to Officer Shaw a contact information for a CBP authority who could provide a formal report and possibly video surveillance of Patrick Fox at the crossing, March 21st.
Fox:
Thank you.
Judge:
Okay.
Fox:
So that was one day after the case was assigned to you?
Hawkins:
Yes, it was.
Fox:
Okay. And can you tell me on what date did you first request similar video footage from CBSA?
Hawkins:
If you stand by for a second, I'll go to my notes. I think that would be in my -- in the emails. I believe the officer was Officer Shan Pereira.
Fox:
Oh, yes, yes.
Hawkins:
I just don't have the --
Fox:
I'm familiar with her.
Fox:
Might I make a suggestion?
Judge:
Okay.
Fox:
According to the records that have been made available to me there is no record of the RCMP ever contacting CBSA to request such video footage. However, after I brought up the fact that there is video footage -- that CBSA has video footage of me being removed from the country on that day, and I brought that out to Mr. Wolfe, suddenly after that Constable Brown sent some emails suggesting that on May 7th CBSA was contacted by the RCMP about that.
Judge:
Okay. So let's break it down and --
Fox:
Sure.
Judge:
-- see if the witness actually has a recollection to answer your question. Your suggestion is that there was -- your suggestion, I think -- I think is that at no time did the -- did Constable Hawkins request the CCTV footage from the Canada side.
Fox:
I'm --
Judge:
Is that your suggestion?
Fox:
Well, that is what the evidence would support because --
Judge:
Okay. Well, you can make that suggestion and the constable can --
Fox:
Right.
Judge:
-- agree or disagree.
Fox:
Right, right. And then the second part --
Judge:
So let's just go that far first.
Fox:
Sure.
Judge:
Constable, the suggestion is that you -- you didn't request or -- to your knowledge, repeated request CCTV footage from the Canada side, from Canada Border Services.
Hawkins:
No, I know that we did.
Judge:
Okay.
Hawkins:
I just don't -- I don't have it right here.
Judge:
Okay.
Hawkins:
I know I requested it through -- or at least through the -- Officer Shan Pereira.
Judge:
Okay. So your evidence is that in your recollection you did, you just don't have a --
Hawkins:
Yeah, I can't --
Judge:
-- you don't have --
Hawkins:
I can't say which.
Judge:
You can't refer to any email or anything?
Hawkins:
No.
Judge:
Okay. So your next question was -- was what?
Fox:
Well, my next suggestion -- or the next part of that statement was that it wasn't until a couple of days after I had brought to the Crown's attention the fact that I knew about CBSA having the video footage of me being removed from the country.
Judge:
Yes, and this witness doesn't know what you brought to the Crown's attention and when but --
Fox:
Right, right.
Judge:
-- you may be able to frame it in a way that he can answer, whatever is in his knowledge.
Hawkins:
Mm-hmm.
Fox:
Right. I would think then that would have to be a question for Constable Brown, and I believe she's on your witness list or -- okay, then I'll save that for her.
Judge:
Okay.
Fox:
But with respect to the email communication with CBSA regarding that CCTV video I certainly would like to come back to that if we can --
Judge:
Right.
Fox:
-- if you need to obtain that or get that from your office at some point.
Judge:
Okay. Is it -- it sounds like we're not going to be able to, yes, release you -- we'll release you obviously when you have to go but it sounds like you're going to have to come back is what I'm trying to say.
Hawkins:
Yes, Your Honour.
Judge:
And when you do come back, constable, could you bring your file with the emails I guess, just so that you're able to answer accurately Mr. Fox's questions about the content of those emails because he doesn't have -- he can't come over and show you unfortunately 'cause he doesn't have --
Hawkins:
Yeah.
Judge:
-- he doesn't have paper copies of the thing.
Hawkins:
No.
Judge:
All right. Go ahead, Mr. Fox.
Fox:
Okay.
Fox:
Earlier I had asked if you had any knowledge of whether or not I had any interactions with CBSA on March 15th and you have said that you didn't know, you weren't sure, you have no knowledge of it.
So that being the case -- well, obviously if you have no knowledge of whether or not I had any interaction with them then you would obviously have no knowledge of what that interaction would have been. Okay. I'll move on.
Judge:
All right. I mean you have -- you have no knowledge of any interactions that Mr. Fox has with the CBSA?
Hawkins:
I don't have any documents, no.
Judge:
Okay.
Fox:
Not necessarily documents, just any knowledge of -- on March 15th before I left Canada I turned myself in to CBSA, and so I was wondering if you had any knowledge of what might have transpired at that point when I turned myself in to CBSA. Between there and when I showed up at CBP because you clearly have knowledge of me interacting with CBP.
Hawkins:
I don't know what you were doing there.
Judge:
Yes. So the March --
Fox:
Okay.
Judge:
So your question is that -- in your question you're presupposing certain facts that haven't been --
Fox:
Right.
Judge:
-- agreed to or established yet. So you're basically asking this witness whether he has any knowledge of any interactions that you had with Canada Border Services in this matter and your answer is no?
Hawkins:
I do not.
Judge:
Okay.
Fox:
Which is unfortunate. Another question that I would have for you, in the map that you had provided --
Hawkins:
Yes.
Fox:
-- you pointed out the building, the CBSA building at the top --
Hawkins:
Yes.
Fox:
-- where you had taken custody of me? Do -- well, how can I phrase this. As far as you know is that the CBSA office at the Peace Arch border crossing; is that where they're based?
Hawkins:
I believe it to be, yes.
Fox:
Okay. So if a person was going to turn themselves in to CBSA at the border, the Peace Arch border, would that be the building that they would go to?
Judge:
He might be able to answer it, I don't know. It doesn't --
Hawkins:
That area where I marked the X --
Fox:
Yes.
Hawkins:
-- Mr. Fox, is simply where I went to pick you up.
Fox:
Right.
Hawkins:
I know it's on the Canadian side and it's CBSA office.
Judge:
Okay. I think the question was -- is your question would -- is that building where Constable Hawkins retrieved you from, is that the building that people turn themselves in to when they report to CBSA.
Fox:
Well, that was my question technically, but I guess a more general way of asking you could have been -- as far as you know is that -- is that CBSA's location or where they conduct their operations at Peace Arch border crossing?
Hawkins:
As far as I know that's the CBSA office --
Fox:
Is a CBSA office then, right?
Hawkins:
-- for vehicles going through. I just don't know enough to answer whether that's --
Fox:
Sure, fair enough.
Hawkins:
-- the office or not.
Fox:
And according to this map is that building within a hundred metres of the U.S. border?
Hawkins:
I -- I think it's past that. I think you're -- okay -- well, I've got this one here. Thanks. No.
Fox:
Right.
Hawkins:
You're well on the Canadian side there.
Fox:
Right. It's probably closer to about 200 and a bit maybe. So if there was a probation condition that prohibited a person from going within a hundred metres of the U.S. border would they be violating that condition if they were in that building?
Judge:
Yes. That particular question is one step too --
Fox:
Okay. Sorry.
Judge:
That's the question I have to determine. But the evidence is is that that building is not within -- in the officer's opinion and from the map that he constructed -- is not within a hundred metres of the Canada-U.S. border.
Fox:
Right. Thank you, and I apologize.
Judge:
That's about all he can say. The legal effect of -- of you being outside that area is something that we're going to have to grapple with.
Fox:
Have there been other times that you have had to go to the border to apprehend someone?
Hawkins:
No.
Fox:
Okay.
Hawkins:
No, that's my first.
Fox:
And of those times has it ever been at the Peace Arch?
Wolfe:
The answer was no so --
Judge:
Yes, he had never been.
Fox:
Oh, no, he hadn't. Oh, sorry. Sorry.
Fox:
Oh, so I'm the first.
Hawkins:
Yes.
Fox:
All right. And how long have you been a law enforcement officer?
Hawkins:
Four and a half years.
Fox:
Oh. Has all that time been with the RCMP?
Hawkins:
Yes, it has.
Fox:
Okay. I have a creeping suspicion that this next question is probably going to be over the line. If it is I apologize.
Judge:
Okay. Well, just -- before you answer it we'll just -- we'll make a determination. What's your question?
Fox:
In your experience, in the past four and a half years, is it common or is it typical that this much time and effort would be expended on something as seemingly small as a probation violation? What I'm referring to is bringing somebody back from a foreign country.
Judge:
Yes, you're right.
Fox:
I thought so.
Judge:
Well, first of all, it's a matter of relevance and the question itself, you know, might be -- the answer might be interesting, of some interest, but it's certainly not relevant to the issues that have to be determined.
Fox:
Those are the only questions that I have at this point. I'll have a few more questions once we find out about the email communication with CBSA.
Judge:
Email communications, okay. So constable, are you able to obtain those email communications?
Hawkins:
I will -- I'll go back and look. I feel like I've already addressed some of these -- I feel like I brought this up before. I just don't know -- I don't have it written down right here.
Judge:
You might have answered a Crown query or something about this issue, I'm sure.
Hawkins:
Yeah, it's possible. I remember being asked about it but I will look to the best I can.
Judge:
Okay. And Mr. Wolfe, I'm going to -- if we stand down you've got a few minutes. If you have that adjournment too, somewhere maybe you can point out to the constable where they are.
Wolfe:
I will check it out.
Judge:
Yes, okay. I think we're at that point where we're going to have to release Constable Hawkins to come back in the morning, is that fair? Are you able to come back in the morning?
Hawkins:
I am, yes. I just would like to clarify exactly what I'm looking for.
Judge:
Yes. Okay, sure. Mr. Fox, you're looking for email communication between Constable Hawkins or the RCMP in general and the Canada Border Services Agency with respect to CCTV footage that they may have -- have existed with respect to your visit there.
Fox:
Right.
Judge:
Or attended there. And what else is there?
Fox:
Well, we're referring to on March 15th as opposed to when I was there on April 4th.
Judge:
March 15th.
Fox:
But also it doesn't necessarily have to be email correspondence because it might have been over the telephone or something.
Judge:
Sure.
Fox:
If it was by telephone though it's going to be incredibly difficult to prove; whereas if there's email, at least there's a written record of it, so hopefully it's going to be email.
Judge:
Okay. So any document that would assist you in answering the question with respect to your request for CCTV footage on March -- from March 15th.
Fox:
Yes. Mainly I would like to know what is -- what is the date that the first request was made to CBSA.
Hawkins:
The first date?
Fox:
Yes. Like, when was it first requested.
Hawkins:
Where we first asked about CCTV. Okay.
Fox:
Thank you. And thank you also for coming and for your time today.
Hawkins:
Thank you.
Judge:
Okay.
Wolfe:
He's under cross, he remains under cross. Witness caution, please.
Judge:
Yes, sure, but he may have to communicate with you with respect to sorting out the --
Wolfe:
I'll be very careful about that.
Judge:
Yes. So just a general caution then. You're under cross-examination, you're not to discuss the evidence here with other folks outside of the courtroom.
Hawkins:
No.
Judge:
But for that limited purpose of trying to find it. Okay.
Judge:
So what else can we do today, Mr. Wolfe?
Wolfe:
That's it.
Judge:
Okay.
Fox:
I do have one possible concern that I would like to express. I don't know that anything needs to be in front of the witness.
Wolfe:
Should we excuse the witness?
Judge:
Sure. Okay. Constable Hawkins, you're free.
Wolfe:
For tomorrow -- until tomorrow.
Judge:
We'll see you tomorrow at 9:30. We're back in the same courtroom I think. Thank you.
Hawkins:
Would you like me to --
Wolfe:
If you want to wait outside the Crown Office -- well, you've got to be gone in five minutes. Don't bother.
Hawkins:
Okay.
Wolfe:
We'll be here longer than that.
Hawkins:
Okay.
(WITNESS STOOD DOWN)
Judge:
Okay. Yes, Mr. Fox?
Fox:
It seems to me that if there are, in fact, some emails between the RCMP and CBSA regarding requests for CCTV video or anything else at all, none of that has been disclosed to me so I'm a little concerned why none of that has been included in the disclosure.
Judge:
Okay. So you're saying if this witness came with emails with respect to the questions you were asking him, that would surprise you 'cause you haven't been provided anything?
Fox:
Right.
Judge:
Well, fair enough.
Fox:
That's all. I just wanted to make sure that that was brought up.
Wolfe:
No, I get that point.
Judge:
Okay. So we'll find out I guess in the morning.
Fox:
Okay.
Judge:
And in respect of -- when Mr. Fox was asking those questions, Mr. Wolfe, that's nothing that, you know, triggers your memory as far as the disclosure package, whether you saw anything like that either.
Wolfe:
I do believe we disclosed -- an email communication with Brown's signature that referenced May 7th date.
Fox:
Yes. That was --
Wolfe:
But more than that I don't think I've got -- I just -- just that. That was recently uploaded onto the disclosure laptop.
Fox:
Yes. I received that after the previous hearing that we had on the Friday.
Wolfe:
Yes.
Fox:
So that's after I got back to jail.
Wolfe:
And that's all I got. But you know, I can speak to Brown about that.
Fox:
There's a huge amount of stuff redacted from that.
Judge:
From the Brown emails?
Fox:
Yes.
Judge:
Yes. Theoretically they don't -- pretend you're -- but I mean --
Fox:
The subject line said Re: Fox and --
Judge:
Yes. The subject line is you and then there's some redactions.
Fox:
Yeah, there's a huge block that was -- you know --
Judge:
Well, that is a -- I guess the -- yes. I guess that would cover --
Wolfe:
You know what, that -- here's an idea to consider.
Judge:
You've seen the unredacted version, Mr. Wolfe?
Wolfe:
Yes. I did the redaction on it so you know, the stuff I pull out is either going to be litigation privilege or personal information.
Judge:
Well, litigation privilege in a criminal proceeding is pretty limited but -- but --
Wolfe:
I know, but it's there. There's categories of privileges, but that aside, if we're talking about the important stuff that Mr. Fox is interested in I wouldn't pull that out.
Judge:
Okay.
Wolfe:
But here's my idea. Brown is probably the better constable or witness to ask about any formal request to CBSA, and if it's okay with the court and Mr. Fox and being careful to maintain like a barrier between witnesses -- I mean what Hawkins says in court is not Brown's business.
Fox:
But according to that email from Brown --
Wolfe:
Yeah.
Fox:
-- it was Hawkins that was communicating with CBSA.
Wolfe:
Yeah. Well, I don't know where that comes from. We're going to have to ask Brown about that. We'll wait till Hawkins comes in. But I'm in the court's hands and if Mr. Fox would prefer nothing asked of Brown then that's okay too.
Fox:
No, no, no, no, I have questions I would like to ask Brown.
Wolfe:
Yeah, okay.
Judge:
Yes, okay. Yes, of course. So let's deal with that in the morning and we'll see what Hawkins has to offer in the morning and we'll go from there I guess. So there is -- you're saying, Mr. Wolfe, that some of the disclosure was redacted but only for matters that aren't possibly relevant --
Wolfe:
Mm-hmm.
Judge:
-- to Mr. Fox's plea.
Fox:
I'm not overly concerned with the redactions at this point because I have a creeping suspicion that the emails in their entirety are probably going to be provided to me at some point anyway.
Judge:
Okay. Okay. So we'll resume then at 9:30 tomorrow morning. We're back in the same courtroom.
Clerk:
Yes.
Judge:
Yes, okay. So Mr. Fox, we'll see you tomorrow. Thanks, Mr. Wolfe.
Fox:
Thank you.
Judge:
Everybody.
Transcriber: J. Murao