Home Tech Meng Wanzhou case: The testimony of RCMP witnesses is contradictory, defense lawyers question the lie
Meng Wanzhou's application for a change in bail conditions was rejected

Meng Wanzhou case: The testimony of RCMP witnesses is contradictory, defense lawyers question the lie

by YCPress

Toronto, November 28 Meng Wanzhou’s extradition case ended another five-day trial in the British Columbia High Court in Vancouver on November 27 local time. In court, the witness made contradictions or different testimony to the details of the process of obtaining Meng Wanzhou’s mobile phone serial number by law enforcement officials.

Three witnesses from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and who participated in the arrest of Meng Wanzhou at Vancouver Airport on December 1, 2018, appeared in court and were cross-examined by the prosecution and the defense.

About the serial number of mobile phone

Janice Vander Graaf, a director of the RCMP, admitted in his affidavit last October that he had recorded in his notes that Gurvinder Dhaliwal, a RCMP officer, reported to her after the arrest that The serial number of Meng Wanzhou’s mobile phone was passed to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) through the hands of Officer Ben Chang. Graf was worried about this and checked the email between Daliwa and Ben Chang.

Daliwa said in his previous testimony that he did not remember this matter and did not believe that any members of the Royal Mounted Police had illegally provided evidence to the United States.

Graf once said in court that he did not remember the reason for taking down the note and the content of Daliwa’s report. However, after questioning by the defense lawyer, she said that she remembered again and said that she had not asked about the fact that the serial number was handed over to the United States, because it was not her responsibility, and whether Daliwa’s sharing of the serial number of the mobile phone was authorized by the judge had nothing to do with her.

The serial number of the mobile phone is the identification number of the mobile device. Mastering it means that you can obtain all kinds of content such as call records, memory data, cloud information and so on in Meng Wanzhou’s electronic equipment through technical means.

The defense lawyer questioned Graf’s lie with the intention of modifying the evidence to cover up the illegal sharing of information between the Royal Mounted Police and the United States. Graf denied it.

About mobile phone password

Graf admitted in court that the Royal Mounted Police should not obtain Meng Wanzhou’s mobile phone password from personnel of the Canadian Border Service. But when Meng Wanzhou’s defense lawyer asked whether the acquisition was wrong, she once said yes and finally replied “I don’t know”.

Daliwa said in court that the note with the password of the mobile phone was handed over by Scott Kirkland, an official of the Border Service. However, Kirkland said in court earlier that the mobile phone and password were taken away by RCMP officers.

About the operation process and security

Daliwa said in court that he had not read the arrest warrant and the operational guidelines provided by lawyers of the Ministry of Justice before the arrest. Graf, his superior, also said that he had not seen the arrest warrant before formulating the action plan.

As for the fact that law enforcement officers did not comply with the requirements of the arrest warrant for “immediate arrest”, but detained Meng for about three hours for an inspection, Graff argued that the RCMP did not pay attention to how long the border service’s entry inspection process took. Even if an entry check takes two days, the execution of an arrest after two days is an “immediate arrest”.

She also admitted that when the law enforcement officers acted on the same day, they immediately identified Meng Wanzhou, and then detained his mobile phone and immediately put it into a “faraday bag” with a shielded signal. However, they did not immediately arrest Meng or inform him of his Charter rights.

Ross Lundie, a RCMP officer, said in court that he did not think there were security concerns in the arrest of Meng. If the arrest may threaten the safety of the public or police officers, the arrest should be carried out on the plane. Daliwa also said that there were no security concerns when planning the arrest. However, when RCMP officer Winston Yep appeared in court earlier, he said that the failure to board the plane to arrest was for security reasons, because Meng may be carrying knives or bodyguards.

Since late October, a number of witnesses from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Border Service have appeared in court to cross-examine the prosecution and the defense whether there was any procedural abuse in the arrest of Meng Wanzhou by Canadian law enforcement agencies.

The court plans to continue the next round of hearings on December 7 for follow-up witness interviews.