Home Tech Hearing on the Meng Wanzhou case: Canadian police officers admitted that the affidavit for applying for an arrest warrant was “wrong”
Hearing on the Meng Wanzhou case: Canadian police officers admitted that the affidavit for applying for an arrest warrant was "wrong"

Hearing on the Meng Wanzhou case: Canadian police officers admitted that the affidavit for applying for an arrest warrant was “wrong”

by YCPress

On the 27th local time in Vancouver, in the High Court of British Columbia, Meng Wanzhou’s lawyers (defense lawyers) spent one day continuing to confront the Canadian Federal Police (RCMP, or the Royal Mounted Police) officer Winston Ye ( Winston Yep) asked. 

Compared with the 26th, the police officer’s process of answering the defense lawyers on the same day was significantly longer.

He seemed to think twice before answering every question, and his voice was lower than yesterday. Despite the careful choice of the answer, he was forced to admit directly in the process of questioning that he obtained the judge’s provisional arrest warrant with the wrong affidavit.

According to Canadian law, the police must apply to the judge for an arrest warrant to arrest anyone. In this case, the judge issued a temporary arrest warrant, which is mainly based on the police affidavit. 

To prevent the police from abusing judicial power, the police must make an honest statement to the judge in the affidavit. The judge decides whether to issue an arrest warrant based on trust in the content of this affidavit. However, with such an important affidavit, Constable Ye has many errors in the form and content of the affidavit.

1. Failure to provide accurate content to the judge in the affidavit

The key message in the affidavit is whether Meng Wanzhou is connected to Canada. Officer Ye stated in the affidavit that Meng Wanzhou had no ties with Canada. 

The defense lawyer pointed out that Meng Wanzhou has not only traveled to and from Canada more than 50 times in the past 10 years, he currently has two properties in Vancouver, and he also had Canadian permanent resident status. 

In this regard, Constable Ye admitted, “I was mistaken about the fact that Meng Wanzhou has nothing to do with Canada.”

2. Knowing that there are errors in the affidavit, but not correcting them in time

Officer Ye admitted that on November 30, the night before Meng Wanzhou was arrested,

he learned that in the affidavit he signed that afternoon, the statement that “Meng Wanzhou is not related to Canada” was wrong. .

The defense lawyer asked him whether he had corrected the misinformation. Do you contact the prosecutor of the Ministry of Justice for advice? Do you discuss with his colleague Dhaliwal how to remedy it? 

Did you report to your boss, Jane Vander Graaf, and apply for postponement of the arrest warrant? Police Officer Ye answered no . The defense lawyer asked him if he knew that Meng Wanzhou had real estate in Vancouver before he signed the affidavit, would he add this information to the affidavit content he said he would. 

In other words, Police Officer Ye knew that his affidavit contained errors, but he used four “no”s in a row to admit that he did not want to take any correction or remedial measures.

3. The suggestion that violated the arrest warrant turned out to be “I don’t know who made it”

Officer Ye admitted that he made the proposal to change the arrest of Meng Wanzhou on the plane, but when the defense lawyer asked him why he made this proposal, he replied that it was because the people from the Border Services Bureau implied that it belonged to them.

Jurisdiction. However, when the lawyer asked who of the Border Services Bureau made this suggestion, Officer Ye couldn’t answer it.

 When the defense lawyer asked him if anyone had really said this suggestion, Officer Ye changed his words and said that he understood it so well at the time.