China News Service, Toronto, October 31 (Reporter Yu Ruidong) A round of hearings in the extradition case of Meng Wanzhou on whether there was any procedural abuse during the arrest of Canadian law enforcement agencies was held in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada on October 30, local time. (Also translated as British Columbia) The High Court ends.

Witnesses from Canadian law enforcement agencies admitted in court for cross-examination that there were errors in the process of arresting Meng Wanzhou.

　　During this five-day hearing, three witnesses from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Border Services Agency appeared in court and accepted cross-examination by the prosecution and the defense.

This is the first time that the outside world has learned about the specific process of the Canadian law enforcement agency’s arrest of Huawei’s vice chairman and chief financial officer Meng Wanzhou at Vancouver International Airport on December 1, 2018.

　　RCMP officer admits procedural "error"

　　The first half of the court appearance was Canadian RCMP officer Winston Yep (Winston Yep).

He admitted that he knew this was a "high-profile" case before the action.

　　An affidavit that Ye gave to the judge before the action described Meng Wanzhou as "not related" to Canada.

He signed without background information verification, and later found that the content did not match the facts, but did not make corrections or any remedial measures.

He admitted that this was his "mistake."

　　In this case, the content of the affidavit is the only source of information that the judge can rely on when deciding whether to issue a provisional arrest warrant.

　　During the operation, law enforcement officers did not "immediately arrest" Meng Wanzhou on the plane in accordance with the arrest warrant.

Ye explained that this was due to "security concerns" and respect for the Border Services Agency's "jurisdiction" at the airport, but he did not mention security or jurisdiction issues in any notes or documents.

　　Ye said that he was worried about Meng's anti-reconnaissance ability and that she was also worried that she would carry a knife.

But after Meng Wanzhou got off the plane, law enforcement officials did not search whether she was carrying weapons, but confiscated and searched her electronic equipment.

　　Ye did not follow the prosecution's request in advance to write an event schedule after the action.

Regarding the change of the action plan and many other details, Ye responded that he had "cannot remember".

　　Meng Wanzhou’s defense lawyer stated in court that Ye’s answers to some questions were not honest.

　　Border officials admitted to handing over the code to the police by mistake

　　The main person who appeared in court after the hearing was Scott Kirkland, an official of the Canadian Border Services Agency.

He said that prior to the operation, he learned that Meng Wanzhou was listed as a "national security" guard by the Canadian Border Service Agency.

But after investigating Meng, he believed that she was not involved in national security issues.

　　Kirkland said that he confiscated Meng Wanzhou's mobile phone and put it in a radiation-proof bag provided by the FBI.

He denied that the Border Services Agency was confiscating mobile phones for the FBI, but he was not sure whether the RCMP would hand over the items to the US.

　　He admitted that he "unintentionally" handed the note with Meng Wanzhou's mobile phone password to the RCMP along with his mobile phone, which basically violated the privacy law.

He said that he felt heartache and headache for this.

　　Kirkland also admitted that she was indeed worried that the delay in the execution of the arrest warrant due to the interrogation of Meng would affect her rights.

　　Bangladesh’s defense lawyers believe that the Border Services Agency’s approach is to use its privileges to interrogate Bangladesh without the presence of a lawyer and without telling the real reason for the confiscated mobile phone.

　　The witness who appeared in court briefly in the last half of the hearing was Bryce McRae, a competent official of the Canadian Border Services Agency.

He confirmed that the day before Meng Wanzhou flew to Vancouver, the FBI had called and "unusually" asked the Canadian Border Services Agency to provide the phone number of the supervisor on duty the next day.

However, the next day the US FBI did not call in the future.

　　Regarding the pre-operation meeting and some specific issues in the process of intercepting and interrogating Meng Wanzhou, McCree said he "cannot remember."

　　Meng Wanzhou’s team of lawyers has always believed that there was procedural abuse in this case, so the extradition procedure should be suspended and three branch lines should be set up to appeal.

The first is to prove the political nature of the case by high-level U.S. politicians; the second is to demonstrate that the law enforcement agencies have abused procedures during the detention of Meng at the airport; the third is to point out that the case records and other documents provided by the United States to Canadian officials are misleading. Sexual, there are major omissions and misstatements.

This round of hearing belongs to the second branch.

　　In this round of hearings, the prosecution lawyers tried to prove that the arrests complied with the requirements of the procedure and the negligence did not hinder the validity of extradition.

　　Due to the slower-than-expected progress in questioning witnesses, the court will investigate the follow-up schedule and will add multiple sessions in November and December to continue cross-examination of witnesses and conduct other branch hearings.

The next round of hearings will begin in mid-November.

(Finish)