On the evening of the 29th local time in Vancouver, Judge Heather Holmes of the High Court of British Columbia, Canada, made a ruling dismissing an application by the prosecutor’s lawyer in the extradition case of Meng Wanzhou.
This ruling means that the judge believes that there may be “deliberate omission of evidence” or “significant omission of evidence” in the “case records” provided by the United States, so it can be listed as one of the reasons for applying for terminating the extradition of Meng Wanzhou.
The ruling holds that whether Ms. Meng’s appeal is to suspend the proceedings or to delete evidence from the “case record”, it is based on the consideration of each branch separately, as well as the comprehensive consideration of each branch.
Therefore, there is a possibility that the third branch cannot be established on its own, but it can be established when combined with the first branch and the second branch.
Therefore, the judge decided to reject the prosecution's lawyer's request.
The trial of Meng Wanzhou’s extradition case has now entered the second stage, that is, whether there is any abuse of judicial procedures in the trial of the US and Canadian governments’ arrest and extradition application for Meng Wanzhou.
Meng Wanzhou’s lawyers applied for termination of the extradition procedure against Meng Wanzhou on three branch grounds, namely: the first branch, political interference in justice; the second branch, the Canadian law enforcement agency’s procedures for arresting Meng Wanzhou violated the law and violated her. Charter rights; the third branch, the evidence provided by the US has major omissions.
Previously, the judge had accepted the first and second branches.
The prosecutor's lawyer representing the Canadian Ministry of Justice believed that the third branch was not established, and therefore applied for the judge's rejection.
But now, these three branches are accepted by the judge, which means that Meng Wanzhou’s lawyers have more evidence to demand the termination of Meng Wanzhou’s extradition.
Generally, the evidence provided by the extradited person will not be adopted in extradition cases. However, the judge's choice to accept part of the evidence from the extradited person indicates that the judge has serious doubts about the reliability of the content of the "case record" submitted by the United States to support the extradition request.
The ruling is made by the judge in accordance with the procedural law, which is usually the decision made by the judge on the case trial procedure during the trial.
A verdict is a decision made by a judge in accordance with substantive law and is usually announced at the end of the case.
(Headquarters reporter Zhang Sen)