John Nuttall and Amanda Korody are shown in a still image taken from RCMP undercover video.HO/The Canadian Press
The RCMP officer who led the undercover investigation into a husband and wife found guilty of plotting to explode pressure-cooker bombs outside the B.C. Legislature on Canada Day told court that police gave the couple plenty of opportunities to back out.
But lawyers for the couple told the entrapment hearing that giving their clients a way out was of little effect, because they feared they'd be killed for taking it.
John Nuttall and Amanda Korody were found guilty by a jury last month of conspiring to murder persons unknown and making or possessing an explosive substance – in both cases for the benefit of or at the direction of a terrorist group. However, the judge said she would wait to enter the verdicts until after an entrapment argument was heard. The entrapment hearing began this week in B.C. Supreme Court.
On Tuesday, the court heard testimony from Staff Sergeant Vaz Kassam. He was appointed head of the investigation on June 24, 2013, one week before the pressure-cooker devices were dropped off at the legislature. Exactly why Staff Sgt. Kassam was named to the post so late in the five-month investigation was not made clear.
Court heard two undercover Mounties, who were posing as members of a terror network and cannot be identified, staged an argument on June 29, 2013, while Mr. Nuttall was in earshot. One of the officers – whom Mr. Nuttall and Ms. Korody believed to be the more senior member of the terror network – said he was "not happy" with Mr. Nuttall's work. The officer said Mr. Nuttall was not ready to carry out the plot and was wasting his time.
Mr. Nuttall had, one day earlier, told his wife he feared they would be killed if they did not see the plot through.
Mark Jetté, Ms. Korody's lawyer, said after Mr. Nuttall heard the criticism he begged the officers for help.
"This was the same guy, of course, who the day before in his motel room, at the Sundance, expressed fear that if he didn't come through he'd be killed," Mr. Jetté said.
"We covered that off by, again, providing the targets outs," Staff Sgt. Kassam replied.
"I guess those outs wouldn't be terribly effective, though, if the subject of your investigation, the target, had come to the firm view that he was dealing with people who not only were capable of killing him but would kill him," Mr. Jetté countered.
"I disagree. [The undercover officers] were very clear that they didn't have to go through with their plan," Staff Sgt. Kassam said.
Staff Sgt. Kassam said he could not recall Mr. Nuttall saying he feared the undercover officers. When asked by Mr. Jetté whether that would have been important for him to know, the officer said, "Yes, they'd feel they would have no choice in doing this operation."
Marilyn Sandford, Mr. Nuttall's lawyer, told the court that staging an argument and getting angry with Mr. Nuttall was "the last way to build trust."
"If the person doing the confronting is someone the other party believes is a dangerous, potentially violent terrorist, then what you risk, sir, I suggest, is the target simply saying what they think they need to say in order to keep that person happy," Ms. Sandford said.
"I disagree," Staff Sgt. Kassam responded.
During the trial, defence lawyers attempted to portray Mr. Nuttall, 40, and Ms. Korody, who is about a decade younger, as poverty-stricken heroin addicts who were manipulated by police.
The Crown said Mr. Nuttall branded himself and Ms. Korody "al-Qaeda Canada" and attempted the attack in the hopes it would make Canadians think twice about sending troops to Muslim countries. The Crown described Mr. Nuttall and Ms. Korody as hardened jihadis who were determined to carry out some type of plot.
Staff Sgt. Kassam described the investigation as a "non-traditional Mr. Big" sting. In Mr. Big investigations, a target is typically asked about a past act by a person posing as a crime boss.
Staff Sgt. Kassam was also asked about an e-mail from another officer in which the Mounties discussed the implications of putting the explosive C4 in the pressure-cooker devices. In the e-mail, the Mounties wondered whether such a move would pass "the Globe and Mail test."
Staff Sgt. Kassam said The Globe and Mail test is also known as a community shock test.
"Would the conduct be outrageous and would the community in general perceive the behaviour completely unwarranted by police? Would it shock them, in essence," the officer explained.
The pressure-cooker devices contained trace amounts of C4. The RCMP has said the public was never in danger.