[ad_1]
After years of delays, a Canadian man’s lawsuit accusing the federal authorities of contributing to his detention and torture overseas is lastly going earlier than a court docket this fall.
However earlier than the case can proceed, a choose must determine if intelligence officers can testify behind closed doorways.
Abousfian Abdelrazik was arrested throughout a 2003 go to to his mom in Sudan. He spent the subsequent six years in jail or in pressured exile on the Canadian embassy in Khartoum as his makes an attempt to return to Canada had been constantly rejected by the federal authorities. He was by no means charged.
In response to an agreed assertion of info, officers from the Canadian Safety Intelligence Service interrogated Abdelrazik whereas he was in custody about suspected extremist hyperlinks. Abdelrazik has denied any involvement with terrorism.
CSIS has denied asking Sudanese authorities to detain Abdelrazik — however court docket information counsel Sudanese officers told Canadian diplomats that CSIS asked for Abdelrazik’s arrest.
Abdelrazik got here again to Canada in 2009 after a Federal Court docket justice discovered his constitution rights had been violated and ordered his return.
The Montreal father filed a lawsuit looking for $27 million in compensation that very same 12 months. He alleges in his assertion of declare that he was tortured in Sudanese custody and the federal authorities violated his constitutional proper to return dwelling.
After Abdelrazik waited 9 years to get his case earlier than a choose, the case was scheduled to go forward in 2018. That court docket date was postponed to provide court docket officers time to overview and redact tons of of pages of paperwork, together with emails and memos, below the Canada Proof Act.
The court docket issued an order final summer season redacting 1,469 paperwork however is permitting vetted summaries be disclosed.
A trial date is ready for subsequent month — however there is a remaining hurdle to clear earlier than the case may be heard.
Shut the doorways to guard nationwide safety: Crown
Final month, the Crown filed a movement asking that six of its witnesses be allowed to testify behind closed doorways “to keep away from harm to Canada’s worldwide relations, nationwide defence and/or nationwide safety.” The witnesses in query are present and former members of CSIS, the RCMP and International Affairs Canada.
Authorities attorneys argue of their movement that the general public and media must be excluded from the courtroom throughout these officers’ testimony to “forestall inadvertent disclosure” of protected secrets and techniques. Disclosure of sure protected info, they argue, “would endanger the lives of present and former CSIS workers, their colleagues, their households, and negatively influence CSIS’s capability to function.”
The movement suggests transcripts of those witnesses’ testimony can be made accessible publicly, with redactions if vital.
The Crown notes that an Ontario Superior Court docket choose allowed sure witnesses to testify in-camera through the trial final 12 months of former RCMP official Cameron Ortis, who was convicted of violating the Safety of Info Act.
The Crown can also be looking for an order to defend the CSIS witnesses by permitting them to testify behind a display, or by utilizing know-how to change their voices.
Parts of Cameron Jay Ortis’s trial had been held behind closed doorways final fall. He was discovered responsible of leaking secret info to police targets. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)
Abdelrazik’s authorized staff is preventing the movement, arguing such an distinctive order is pointless.
In his written illustration, Abdelrazik’s lawyer Paul Champ argues the witnesses are “very skilled coping with extremely confidential issues” and calls the suggestion that they may blurt out labeled info “speculative at finest.”
“The open court docket precept is particularly necessary on this case as a result of it entails allegations of malfeasance and complicity in severe human rights abuses by senior authorities officers,” he writes.
“There’s a robust public curiosity within the public listening to authorities witnesses defend their actions on this case.”
CBC Information is looking for to intervene within the case, arguing the Crown’s movement “would unjustifiably restrict the open court docket precept and infringe upon the freedoms of expression and of the press.”
The Federal Court docket will hear arguments on the movement Wednesday afternoon.
[ad_2]
Source
