Skip to main content
gary mason

The opening days of a criminal trial are usually when the Crown makes most of the news, scores most of the points, dominates the agenda inside the courtroom.

Yet, at the conclusion of the first week of a sensational political corruption trial under way in B.C., it's been the defence that has created most of the headlines and perhaps even some early doubt in the minds of the jurors about the government's case.

The Crown introduced its first witness three days ago - Martyn Brown, chief of staff to B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell - and spent a few hours asking him questions mainly about the oaths of confidentiality undertaken by ministerial assistants in the B.C. government.

Two of those charged in this case - Dave Basi and Bob Virk - were MAs in 2003 when they allegedly accepted money and other financial benefits from a Victoria lobbying firm in exchange for secret government information that was useful to a client.

When the Crown finished with Mr. Brown, the defence took over and hasn't finished with him yet and may not until well into next week. Kevin McCullough, lawyer for Mr. Virk, has done most of the probing, much of it extremely effectively. But many times he's moved into territory that doesn't seem to be terribly relevant or germane to the case - other than making B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell's government look ethically bankrupt - but has got away with it anyway.

After all, two of the three charged are accused of leaking information that legal oaths they had taken prohibited them from giving out. Yet Thursday, Mr. McCullough spent much of the day asking Mr. Brown what he knew about a "dirty tricks" operation being run out of the Premier's office.

Specifically, Mr. McCullough asked Mr. Brown what he recalled about the work being done by Mike McDonald, who for a time headed up a division in the Premier's office called Outreach and Special Projects.

Mr. McDonald would have reported to Mr. Brown yet Mr. Brown initially said he didn't remember Mr. McDonald working in the Premier's office until confronted with proof. Asked what Mr. McDonald's job was, Mr. Brown said it was to "reach out to stakeholders and encourage them to be vocal about changes government was making that were helping them."

It was Mr. McCullough's assertion that Mr. McDonald got a group in the fish-farming community to disrupt and hijack an anti-fish-farming rally that had been planned in Victoria some time around 2004. The defence lawyer said people were even paid $100 each to attend the rally and spout positive things about the government.

Now, at one point the Crown's main point person - special prosecutor Bill Berardino - rose to ask what Mr. McCullough's questions about the fish-farming rally had to do with the guilt or innocence of those on trial for corruption.

Which was an entirely fair question, it seemed. Somehow, Mr. McCullough managed to convince the ever-patient and terrific judge in this case - Anne MacKenzie - that all of his questions related to dirty tricks were pertinent.

It's pretty obvious where the defence is going with this line of attack.

The accused aren't going to deny leaking information. They have effectively admitted that. Their defence will be they were instructed to do it by their political masters. What Mr. McCullough is doing is building the case that the accused did what they did within an overarching culture of deceit that existed inside Gordon Campbell's government at the time.

If they leaked they were expected to, encouraged to, and they weren't the only ones doing it.

Now, it should be pointed out that Mr. Brown denied knowledge of most of the duplicitous campaigns of which Mr. McCullough suggested that the Premier and his chief of staff were aware. But does that matter? Even though the judge warned the jury repeatedly not to accept what the defence lawyer said as evidence, doesn't some of it sink in subconsciously?

Mr. McCullough's questions were loaded with wild, unsubstantiated allegations and innuendo. He said the Premier phoned Mr. Virk after he was charged and told him "he would be taken care of if he kept his mouth shut." He said Mr. Virk was applauded at caucus meetings by the Premier and Mr. Brown for being "Bob from Burnaby" - the handle he used when he phoned call-in shows with easy questions. The lawyer used words like "clandestine" and "impersonate" and suggested "deceptive operations" being led by the Premier's office were paid for by taxpayers.

He even managed to somehow work Mr. Campbell's drunk-driving conviction into his script.

While certainly not for everyone, it was a virtuoso performance on many levels. The question is how much longer will he get away with it.

Follow related authors and topics

Authors and topics you follow will be added to your personal news feed in Following.

Interact with The Globe