Transcript of Bail Review Hearing (2021-12-23)
Synopsis
This hearing is critical because we again get to see prosecutor Chris Johnson brazenly lying to the court about events which were audio/video recorded, and the judge blinkly accepting his lies while simultaneously refusing to consider the audio/video recordings.
In particular, Johnson consistently lied that during the interrogation of me, the police offered me the opportunity to provide them a copy of the email I sent to the administrator of the Desiree Capuano website; that the police were only intersted in that one email; and that the police did not only give me the option of providing them the passwords for my phone and laptop so they could go through my devices and emails on their own, in my absence p14l30-31; p14l33-43; p15l9-17.
I repeatedly pointed out to the judge, and to Johnson, that the interrogation was recorded and Johnson had reviewed that recording so he knows that what he's saying is false p15l2-7; p16l10-19. The judge completely ignored the fact that the recording of the interrogation proved Johnson was lying.
All of this may sound outrageous, but if you look at any of my other cases or court proceedings on this website, you will see it's actually the norm in the BC justice system - the prosecutors make up whatever lies suit their purposes at the moment and the judges ignore any evidence which proves they're lying.
PDF32532-1-W
Vancouver Registry
In the Supreme Court of British Columbia
(BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE LAMB)
Vancouver, B.C.
December 23, 2021
REGINA
v.
PATRICK HENRY FOX
v.
PATRICK HENRY FOX
PROCEEDINGS AT JUDICIAL INTERIM
RELEASE HEARING
RELEASE HEARING
32532-1-W
Vancouver Registry
In the Supreme Court of British Columbia
(BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE LAMB)
Vancouver, B.C.
December 23, 2021
REGINA
v.
PATRICK HENRY FOX
v.
PATRICK HENRY FOX
PROCEEDINGS AT JUDICIAL INTERIM
RELEASE HEARING
RELEASE HEARING
Crown Counsel appearing by teleconference: Chris Johnson
Appearing on his own behalf: Patrick Fox
INDEX
EXHIBITS
- Nil
RULINGS
Vancouver, B.C.
December 23, 2021
(VIDEOCONFERENCE COMMENCES)
(JUDGE LAMB IN REMOTE COURTROOM)
(CNSL C. JOHNSON IN REMOTE LOCATION)
Clerk:
Calling the matter of Her Majesty the Queen and Patrick Henry Fox, Justice.
Judge:
Thank you.
I understand Crown is attending by phone today?
Johnson:
Yes, that's correct, Madam Justice. It's Chris Johnson, J-o-h-n-s-o-n. I appear on behalf of the Provincial Crown and my pronouns are he/him, as are Mr. Fox's.
Judge:
Thank you.
Mr. Fox, is that you sitting here in the courtroom?
Fox:
That is I, yes.
Where would the court prefer that I sit? Normally, I would sit at a table with -- across from Mr. Johnson, but since he's not here I'm sure where you would like me.
Judge:
Yes. May I have some assistance from the sheriff, please.
Sheriff:
Yeah. Usually, Fox sits there, I assume, My Lady.
Fox:
Right.
Judge:
This is the first time Mr. Fox has appeared in front of me, so --
Clerk:
If I may, Justice --
Judge:
Yes.
Clerk:
-- we're completely in your hands. We can accommodate anything the court needs.
Judge:
All right. Then if Mr. Fox prefers to sit at -- at the -- at counsel table, I'm content to proceed on that basis.
Clerk:
Thank you.
Judge:
Have a seat.
Fox:
Um --
Judge:
Yes, Mr. Fox?
Fox:
Next I need to ask, does somebody have a pen I can borrow? I'm not allowed to bring a pen from the jail.
Judge:
Mr. Registrar, do we have pen that Mr. Fox can use?
Clerk:
Yes, let me just check.
Can I pass it to Mr. Sheriff?
Judge:
Mr. Sheriff --
Sheriff:
Yes, yes.
Judge:
-- can you assist, please. Thank you.
Fox:
Thank you.
Clerk:
Yeah, thank you.
Judge:
Thanks very much.
Fox:
Thank you.
Judge:
Anything else, Mr. Fox, before we begin?
Fox:
No. Thank you, Your Honour. I'm good.
Judge:
All right.
Mr. Johnson, whenever you're ready.
SUBMISSIONS FOR CROWN BY CNSL C. JOHNSON:
Johnson:
Thank you, Madam Justice. Mr. Fox is before you on s. 525 bail review. The Crown says that there hasn't been a change of circumstances and that the delay hasn't been unreasonable, and that Mr. Fox should still be detained on the secondary ground.
He stands charged in Provincial court with breaching a probation order. There is an order of his detention which, I believe, your -- you have a transcript of -- from August 18th of 2021. At that time, Mr. Fox was ordered detained on the secondary ground by His Honour Judge Galati.
You've -- I just want to confirm that you do have that transcript?
Judge:
I do have the transcript, yes. And if you -- if you want to address the court at the court, if the court has, instead of you, that's fine.
Johnson:
Thank you, Madam Justice.
Judge:
Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
Johnson:
The transcript of the proceedings has also been provided to Mr. Fox and --
Judge:
Sorry, I'll just stop you there because Mr. Fox has his hand up.
Mr. Fox?
Fox:
I did receive an envelope from the Crown earlier, however, it's missing the reasons for judgment. I have the transcript from the bail hearing, but not the reason for judgment.
Judge:
Mr. Johnson, can you assist?
Johnson:
I do not know. I do know that both the reasons for judgment and the transcript, I'm told, were provided to Mr. Fox last week at North Fraser Pretrial. But just to be sure, I dropped by the courthouse this morning and provided Mr. Fox with a copy of the transcript and other documents. The reasons for judgment are three paragraphs long.
Judge:
I was going to -- I was going to say, Mr. Fox, if you want to have a look, the reasons are three paragraphs with a cover page. Do you want to have a look just right now?
Just hold for a moment, Mr. Johnson, please.
Johnson:
Thank you.
Fox:
This is the transcript, the JUSTIN conviction list, this is a reasons for judgment from the Court of Appeal, it's -- it's a different matter, and oral reasons for judgment from 2019, a different matter -- oh, again, in one of the appeals.
Judge:
Have a look at the first package, sir. The -- the -- the reasons have the same cover sheet.
Fox:
Yeah. This is just the transcript. I already read this downstairs.
Judge:
All right.
Mr. Registrar, can we stand down for a moment to get a printout for Mr. Fox of the reasons for judgment?
Clerk:
Yes, Madam Justice.
Judge:
Do you have a copy of those, Mr. Registrar?
Clerk:
I -- I don't have anything, no.
Judge:
All right. Maybe we -- you and I can go out in the hallway. I can send you copy by email or one of us will get it printed.
Clerk:
Sure.
Judge:
All right.
So Mr. Sheriff, we'll stand down for -- to get a copy of the reasons.
Mr. Johnson, we're just going to stand down to make sure Mr. Fox has a copy of the reasons.
Johnson:
Thank you.
Clerk:
Order in court. Court is stood down.
(TELECONFERENCE PAUSED)
(PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED)
(PROCEEDINGS RECONVENED)
(TELECONFERENCE RESUMES)
Clerk:
Mr. Sheriff, can I get you to pass this along?
Sheriff:
Yeah.
Clerk:
Thank you. Thank you.
Judge:
We're on the record, Mr. Registrar?
Clerk:
Yes.
Judge:
Mr. Johnson, just so you know, Mr. Fox has now been provided with a copy of the reasons of Judge Galati.
SUBMISSIONS FOR CROWN BY CNSL C. JOHNSON, CONTINUING:
Johnson:
Thank you, Madam Justice. Much appreciated.
Mr. Fox is before the Provincial court on a file which is an allegation of a breach of probation. He was convicted and sentenced to 16 months in jail for previous breaches in April of this year. And when he was convicted by Judge Rideout he was put on a probation, and a condition of that probation is that he remove a website which relates to Mr. Fox's former spouse, Ms. Desiree Capuano. Madam Justice, have you had the opportunity to read the transcript of -- of the bail hearing?
Judge:
I have.
Johnson:
Thank you. Then I won't repeat most of what I said then, but in any event, I do wish to draw the court's attention to what's been said about Mr. Fox and his activities by the Court of Appeal. That would be at page 3 of the transcript of the bail hearing in Provincial court.
Judge:
Yes, just give me a moment. Just give me a moment, please.
Yes.
Johnson:
Where I referenced a decision of our Court of Appeal in R. v. Fox, that's 2021 BCCA 308, and paragraph 4 of that decision states:
Since 2014, the appellant has engaged in a relentless campaign of harassment directed at his former spouse. Among other things, the appellant created a website in the name of his former spouse. The website contains a large amount of private information about the appellant's former spouse and others with whom she is associated. The purpose of the website appears to be to denigrate, humiliate and intimidate her, to interfere with her personal relationships, and to impair her economic prospects and emotional security.
And then in the same decision at paragraph 16, the court in referring to the evidence indicated that:
Det/Cst. Dent testified that on September 16, 2020, he accessed one of the website domain names referred to in the probation order imposed by Phillips P.C.J. Its home page contained an entry dated August 19, 2020, at 1:53 p.m., which was written as a first-person letter to the Attorney General of British Columbia. As I understand it, the appellant contends that this letter was written the day before the probation order came into effect. The entry refers to the proceedings before Phillips P.C.J. and emphasizes "how ineffectual and impotent the Canadian justice system is [because] [t]hey can't even make a little pissant nobody like myself take down a website." The entry further asserts that "[t]hey can lock me up for the rest of my life, but I will never take down the website ".
Judge:
Mr. Johnson -- Mr. Johnson, your -- the audio is -- is pretty good, but it's not perfect. So just so you know, it's flickering a little bit.
Johnson:
Oh, thank you.
Clerk:
Madam Justice, would it be better if I try -- maybe I can just call him on the phone and that way we can see it might be a little bit better. I -- I just -- it will take just a minute for me to call him back.
Judge:
Mr. Johnson, that might be preferable. Right now, we're accessing you through the -- the MS Teams, I believe, or the equivalent. And so Mr. Registrar, do you want to just let Mr. Johnson know what he should do at this point?
Clerk:
Sure.
Mr. Johnson, we're just going to hang up on you and I'll call you back, okay?
Johnson:
Thank you. I'll hang up.
Clerk:
Yeah, thank you.
(VIDEOCONFERENCE CONCLUDES)
Judge:
Thank you.
(TELECONFERENCE COMMENCES)
(CNSL C. JOHNSON IN REMOTE LOCATION)
Johnson:
Hello, Chris Johnson.
Clerk:
Mr. Johnson, can you hear us, okay?
Johnson:
Yes, I can. Thank you.
Clerk:
Okay.
Judge:
It's much better, Mr. Johnson, go ahead.
SUBMISSIONS FOR CROWN BY CNSL C. JOHNSON, CONTINUING:
Johnson:
Then I just want to advise the court with respect to the outstanding matter from August. Mr. Fox was detained, shortly thereafter a trial date was scheduled, that trial date was in November of this year. And on the day of trial Mr. Fox indicated that he required some further materials, and at least in part because of that, the trial was adjourned
and it's been adjourned to January the 10th, at 9:30 at the Main Street courthouse.
And so that, really, is in a couple of weeks, or three, I suppose, at the most. But in any event, I wanted to bring it to the court's attention that that trial date is fast approaching.
And then, the last thing I do want to refer the court to and Mr. Fox, is a JUSTIN conviction list which was filed with the materials. I believe that -- that Madam Justice, you should have a copy of that and I'm certain that Mr. Fox, because I dropped it off for him this morning.
Judge:
Yes, Mr. Fox is nodding. So I believe he does have that document. And I have it in front of me right now, Mr. Johnson.
Johnson:
Thank you.
And I will say that all of the convictions listed therein relate to the very first entry which is a disposition date of November 10th of 2017 when Mr. Fox received a three-year jail sentence with respect to charges of criminal harassment and possessing a firearm where not allowed, and in addition to that he received a probation order for three years. He's still on -- bound by that probation order.
Subsequently, he was convicted on June the 12th of 2020 with respect to new allegations of breaching that probation order.
And then, more recently, on August the 19th of 2020 he was convicted of another breach of that probation order. That specific breach was in relation to the website which Mr. Fox refuses to remove. And at that point in time, he was sentenced to six months in jail and a further term of probation, a condition of which was to remove the website.
Then most recently on April the 12th of 2021 Mr. Fox was again convicted of breach of that probation order and he was sentenced to a 16-month jail term. And that, in my submission, should indicate to the court the seriousness of these repeated offences. And again, Mr. Fox was sentenced to probation.
And the -- the gist of all of these probation orders are that Mr. Fox is required to remove a website. He has made it clear that he will never do that. He has told the police whether true or false that he transferred the website to some other person, but he is unable to make any -- provide any evidence that that's the case or that he has no control over it. A clear inference from his various statements are that he is able to comply with the probation order, but refuses to do so.
So given all of those circumstances, the Crown does say that there have been no material change in circumstances, and furthermore, that if he's released, Mr. Fox is almost assuredly going to commit further offences by at the very least breaching his probation order.
Those are my submissions.
Judge:
Mr. Johnson, one question in terms of the adjournment at the trial in November of this year. You said that Mr. Fox had requested further materials. Is disclosure now complete?
Johnson:
Yes.
Judge:
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
Johnson:
And I -- I should add on that point, that Mr. Fox recently advised the court, that is the Provincial court, that he had no further need for disclosure because he in effect got the disclosure out of the jail. And I will say that two hard drives provided to Mr. Fox disappeared in the prison last month and that the contents had been published on the internet. And so that was the use that Mr. Fox -- he indicated that's why he wanted the disclosure and that he'd made use of it in that way. But I can say that all of disclosure that he's requested has been provided to him.
Judge:
Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Fox.
SUBMISSIONS BY ACCUSED:
Fox:
First I would like to say with respect to the issue of disclosure, the Crown's position is that they have provided disclosure to the jail. I have not received that disclosure. There's some scheme that they have with the jail right now because they don't want me to have the disclosure in my physical possession. So they provide it to the jail and then I'm supposed to go to the law library and access it there.
Apparently, though, the jail has no knowledge of that whatsoever. I've submitted formal requests here to the jail to get access to the disclosure material. As yet, I haven't had that, but that's as of December 14th. Prior to that, I used to have the disclosure in my possession in my cell.
Judge:
Sorry. Just so I'm clear, sir.
Fox:
Sure.
Judge:
Before December 14th, you did have the disclosure in your possession?
Fox:
Right. Prior to December 14th, the Crown would provide the disclosure to me on a hard drive.
Judge:
I see. And what you're saying is that you no longer have those hard drives?
Fox:
I no longer have those hard drives. I hadn't have them for quite some time now. And the -- the Crown, apparently, has provided another copy of the disclosure and the -- the updated disclosure, but they've provided it to the jail and the jail has not given me access to it or confirmed that they have received it or anything. So I personally have not had access to it. Whether or not the jail does, I don't know.
Judge:
All right. Mr. -- Mr. Johnson just told me that the last -- one of the recent times you were in Provincial court, it became clear that -- or that you advised the court that you had no need for disclosure and that you had already had it. Is that accurate?
Fox:
That is correct. The disclosure related to the current case, I don't believe that I require it at this point because I have done all the preparation that I would require for the upcoming trial.
Judge:
Thank you.
Fox:
However, at the trial, I'm going to require it during the cross-examination. But that's -- that's another matter.
Judge:
I expect Mr. Johnson can make arrangements for that.
Johnson:
Yes. And just so that Mr. Fox is aware, again, and I believe he was present when an order was made in Provincial court, the disclosure is available to him at anytime Monday to Friday between 8:30 and [inaudible/audio cuts out]. And all he needs to do is request access to the library.
Fox:
Okay. I understand that that is what Mr. Johnson may have been told, but reality is a very different thing. Now, right here in my hand, I'm holding a special request form. This is formal request that I've submitted at the jail to get access to the disclosure material. It is dated the 15th, signed by the staff on the 15th. We are now on the 23rd, I still have not had access to that material.
Reality and what Mr. Johnson might have been told are not necessarily the same thing.
Judge:
Right. Mr. Fox, you just told me that you don't need the disclosure now. You'll need it on the day of trial and -- and I anticipate that Mr. Johnson will ensure that that will happen on the day of trial.
Fox:
Wonderful.
Now, the Crown, Mr. Johnson has stated that he believes that there has been no change in the circumstances since the previous bail hearing, but I disagree with that.
At the time of my arrest when I was interviewed by the VPD, I informed them that I had sent an email to the administrator of the website requesting that they take down the website until my probation is finished.
At the time, the VPD wanted me to give them full access to my entire email account so that they can verify that and I refused because there's a lot of stuff. I mean, there's over ten years of emails in there and I wasn't going to just give them complete access to everything.
On October 12th, which was the day that the trial was supposed to commence, Mr. Johnson had stated that if I provide him or the Crown or VPD a copy of that email that he would not prosecute this charge because that would show that I had made some attempt or some effort to get the website taken down. And then on November 23rd, which was the second time that the trial was supposed to proceed, he again said that if I provide or give them access to that email that he would not prosecute the charge.
And my position both times has been that since I'm in custody I don't have access to the internet so I cannot access that email myself. And again, I'm not going to give the VPD or the B.C. Prosecution Service full access to my laptop or full access to my email account.
Now, I had pointed out to Mr. Johnson on October 12th, and again on November 23rd, that the Crown's position has been that I have ownership and control of the website. And so if I had sent an email to the website based on the Crown's position, that would mean that I'm just sending an email to myself and so it would be irrelevant to the fact that I sent such an email. His response was, "Not necessarily."
So the fact that the Crown is now willing to stay or withdraw the charges if I provide them proof that I sent this email to the administrator of the website, shows that the Crown now acknowledges that I don't have ownership or control of the website and that some other party must be in control of the website. The problem though, is that if I don't have ownership or control of the website, I can't be compelled to take the website down. And so I'm not sure how the Crown intends to address that issue, but...
Now, it also seems very significant to me that the Crown -- the Crown is supposedly taking the position that the reason for these probation conditions and the reason they want the website taken down is because it is harming my ex-wife, Desiree Capuano. But it's significant -- well, it's -- okay. It may be significant that the website is hosted with a hosting provider in Arizona, in the U.S., which is the state that my ex-wife lives in. She has taken no steps at all over the past five years, certainly not over the past three years, since I've been on the probation order, to do anything about the website. It seems that it's the Crown and the Victim Services Department are the ones that are really pushing very hard to get this website taken down, not my ex-wife.
It's my belief that the reason the Crown wants the website taken down is because there is material on there that I believe, irrefutably proves that the Crown has been engaging in outrageous misconduct and corruption in my cases. And that's really, I believe, the Crown's underlying concern here. And I believe that that is also why the Crown is making such a big deal about the publishing of disclosure of material. And I'm not saying that I had anything to do with the publishing of the disclosure material, but that is their allegation.
Now, Mr. Johnson did bring up an article that was posted on the website. It was a letter -- or appearing or purporting to be a letter written by me to David Eby [phonetic] where he quoted some stuff from there. That has been on the website for over a year. To this date the Crown has failed or refused to provide any proof or any evidence at all that I had anything at all to do with that particular article. It was posted to the website on August 19th, which is a day that I was in court in person. So that entire day I was in the courtroom or in the holding cells at the courthouse, or being transported back to the jail. It would have been physically impossible for me to have anything to do with composition or the publishing of that particular article.
And it should also be pointed out that the Crown has had -- what's it been, I guess three years or so now, to present any evidence at all that I have any ownership or control or even involvement in the website during the period of time that I have been on probation. And so far they have not -- they've not provided any evidence to support that. In 2019, the VPD was investigating the first breach allegation related to the website. And Detective Jennifer Fontana was in contact with the hosting provider in Arizona. She succeeded in getting the website suspended for 90 days. And presumably during that time she would have inquired about whether or not I am the owner of the website or having anything to do with the website. But even at that point when I cross- examined her at that trial, she stated that she did not have any evidence that I have anything at all to do -- or that I have any ownership or control over the website.
The Crown also mentioned that the trial is currently scheduled to start on January 10th, and that is only two and a half weeks or so away. But I would like to point out, for example, back in 2019 on the matter of 244069-5-B-C, the allegation that I breached probation by leaving British Columbia without permission, there was a similar situation there where I had a bail review two or three weeks before the trial was scheduled to start. The Crown brought up the fact that the trial was going to be starting in a couple of weeks and so another couple of weeks in custody wouldn't be that big of a deal. But then the trial started, but then ended up being adjourned repeatedly over a seven-month period, while I tried to obtain evidence from CBSA. And the Crown over that period of time and CBSA consistently stated to the court that that evidence doesn't exist, that there's no record that I ever presented myself to them. After six months I obtained the records proving that they did exist and that I did present myself to them, from IRCC. So just because the -- the trial was scheduled to start in two and a half weeks, certainly does not mean that it's not going to be adjourned again or that it might not be delayed for some other reason.
Judge:
Sorry, Mr. Fox, can I ask you. What's your estimate in terms of length of trial? How many days?
Fox:
I believe we have a half day scheduled for it at this point. Maybe Mr. Johnson can confirm that?
Johnson:
Yes, I believe we set it for three hours and we were advised that if we needed more time we could likely have it. So I think it's -- it's most likely scheduled for a day.
Judge:
Thank you.
Fox:
Mr. Johnson also mentioned or made reference to a original probation order that was issued by Justice Holmes back in 2017 on the criminal harassment offence. That was imposed for the statutory maximum of three years. That order expires on December 28th, which is only a few days away. That probation order also had a condition that prohibited me from leaving British Columbia. And I can say that at this point, once I'm no longer required to remain in Canada, it is my intention to leave Canada as quickly as I possibly can. And of course, if I'm released on bail, then obviously, I would have to remain here until the trial is finished in this matter.
But let's see, other than that probation order, there's one other probation order. I believe it's the one that was imposed by Judge Rideout which doesn't expire until August of next year. However, since that one is, also, essentially, the same conditions related to the website as the Justice Holmes order, I would likely seek to have that one terminated or I'd like to have the time of it shortened so that once the original Justice Holmes order expires, then perhaps, I can get the other one removed and then I can just go back to the U.S. and move on with my life.
What I would say -- I mean, what would seem reasonable to me at this point, since the Crown is acknowledging that there likely is an email that was sent by me to the administrator of the website requesting that they take it down until my probation is completed, and since they have already stated that if I provide them a copy of that email, that they won't prosecute this -- this charge, what seems reasonable to me is that I should be released on bail with the condition that within 48 hours of my release I would provide a copy of that email to the Crown. And the reason I would say within 48 hours is because at this point, I'm homeless. I have no contacts, no -- no friends or family in Canada. We have this incredibly brutal cold weather that's coming in the next few days. And my laptop and phone have been seized by the VPD so there may be some logistical issues in being able to forward the email to -- to Mr. Johnson.
And those would be all of my submissions. Thank you.
Judge:
Mr. Johnson, in reply?
REPLY FOR CROWN BY CNSL C. JOHNSON:
Johnson:
Yes. Just in reply, I don't, on behalf of the Crown, say that it 's likely that Mr. Fox made efforts to remove the website. In fact, I take quite the opposite. I did have a discussion, at least one, with Mr. Fox where I indicated that if he was willing to show the police the email that he allegedly sent, that I would consider the charge. I never said that if he has an email I would drop the charge, I said I would consider doing that.
But the -- the clear inference is that Mr. Fox refused to provide that to the police
and as a result the inference that I believe exists is the same that Judge Galati drew which is that that's unlikely.
Judge:
Unlikely that he sent the email?
Johnson:
Yes.
Judge:
Okay. And I recall from the transcript of the bail hearing before Judge Galati is that Mr. Fox suggests, as he did today, that he was asked to give the police access to all of his emails, whereas the police indicate that they requested only the significant email, if I can put it that way.
Johnson:
Yes. That is correct.
Fox:
Um --
Judge:
Sorry, Mr. Fox has his hand up, again.
Fox:
I'm sorry. I don't mean to interrupt, but --
Judge:
Go ahead.
Fox:
-- it has been established since then that in fact the police were requesting access to the entire email account. That is in the -- the police interview which has been provided. So I'm sure Mr. Johnson is well aware of that at this point.
Judge:
Mr. Johnson?
Johnson:
Well, I -- I dispute that. I say that the police indicated to Mr. Fox that they wanted to look at that email and that email only. Although, that would entail looking with Mr. Fox's assistance, I would assume, at the -- at his email, and all of his emails without examining them, just to produce the one. The police are only interested in the one email. They're not interested in anything else.
Judge:
Right. Anything else in reply, Mr. Johnson?
Johnson:
No, thank you, My Lady. I'm sorry, Madam Justice.
Judge:
That's all right.
I note the time. I would propose that we stand this matter down until 3:30. Is that acceptable, Mr. Sheriff?
Sheriff:
Yeah. Whatever is required, My Lady.
Unidentified Speaker:
[inaudible/away from mic]
Judge:
Thank you.
Mr. Johnson, then, we'll stand down, Mr. Registrar, until 3:30.
Johnson:
And Mr. -- Mr. Registrar will call me at 3:30?
Clerk:
Yes, I will call you back for -- again, thank you.
Johnson:
Thank you.
Clerk:
Thank you, Johnson.
Order in court. Court is stood down until 3:30 p.m.
(TELECONFERENCE STOOD DOWN)
(PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED)
(PROCEEDINGS RECONVENED)
(TELECONFERENCE RESUMES)
Judge:
Mr. Johnson, are you still on the line?
Johnson:
Yes, I am, Madam Justice.
Judge:
Thank you.
Mr. Registrar, I will now give reasons.
Fox:
Um --
Judge:
Yes, Mr. Fox?
Fox:
I'm sorry, before we proceed, may I just make two very short quick notes --
Judge:
Yes.
Fox:
-- that I would like to point out.
The first is when I was being interviewed by the VPD following my arrest, what they were requesting from me is the passwords for my phone and my laptop, and that's the only option that they presented to me. Nothing about going through my emails in my presence or anything like that. They wanted full access to my laptop and my -- my phone and there was no other option provided. Mr. Johnson must be aware of this because he's reviewed that -- that interview.
And the other point I wanted to make is Mr. Johnson has stated in court on the record that if I provide him a copy of that email that we were discussing earlier that he would likely withdraw the charge. And I bring this up because both of these points are contrary to what Mr. Johnson had stated before we stood down.
That's all, thank you.
Johnson:
I won't reply to that, Madam Justice.
Fox:
It's all recorded. It's in the DARS.
Judge:
Thank you, Mr. Fox.
Mr. Registrar, I'll now give reasons.
Clerk:
Yes, Madam Justice.
Johnson:
Thank you, Madam Justice.
Judge:
Thank you. That concludes today's hearing.
Clerk:
Order in court. Court is adjourned.
(PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED)
Transcriber: J. Vanin