Skip to main content
A scary good deal on trusted journalism
Get full digital access to globeandmail.com
$0.99
per week for 24 weeks SAVE OVER $140
OFFER ENDS OCTOBER 31
A scary good deal on trusted journalism
$0.99
per week
for 24 weeks
SAVE OVER $140
OFFER ENDS OCTOBER 31
// //

A lawyer for one of three people who allegedly supplied ammunition to the gunman who murdered 22 people in Nova Scotia criticized a lack of Crown disclosure as the case started Wednesday.

RCMP have charged Lisa Banfield, the 52-year-old spouse of the killer, with unlawfully transferring ammunition, specifically .223-calibre Remington cartridges and .40-calibre Smith and Wesson cartridges.

Police have laid the same charges against 64-year-old James Blair Banfield and 60-year-old Brian Brewster for offences alleged to have occurred in the month before the April 18-19 killings.

Story continues below advertisement

During a brief date-setting appearance Wednesday in Dartmouth provincial court, Brewster’s lawyer, Tom Singleton, told the judge he’s dissatisfied with the disclosure of evidence and expressed skepticism about whether the RCMP had respected the rights of his client.

He said 13 court documents used to obtain search warrants he received are so heavily redacted that he can’t understand them, and he said he also wants a copy of the search warrant the RCMP used to obtain his client’s cellular telephone.

“I’m hoping I will get a copy of the (search) warrant police say they have to obtain Mr. Brewster’s telephone. It was not provided to him,” he said during the proceedings.

“They (police) got his phone for four days, and took who knows what off of it,” Singleton said to Judge Jean Whalen. The judge asked him to take the matter up with the Crown.

During a telephone interview outside of court on Wednesday afternoon, Singleton said he has deep concerns about the case, adding that his client, the brother-in-law of Lisa Banfield, is a “hard working, ordinary person” who had believed when he gave statements that police weren’t contemplating charges against him.

“This is one of the things that makes me extremely angry about the way this has proceeded. Had he talked to a lawyer, he wouldn’t have been talking to the police,” Singleton said.

Crown attorney Shauna MacDonald told the judge she intended to proceed summarily, meaning the case would be held before a provincial court judge only and there would be no preliminary hearing.

Story continues below advertisement

In a summary process, the potential sentence is limited to a maximum fine of $5,000 or a term of imprisonment of no more than two years less a day, or both.

When the charges were announced on Dec. 4, police said the three accused “had no prior knowledge” of the actions of the gunman, who was killed by an RCMP officer on April 19.

The arraignment on Wednesday occurred by teleconference, and a date of March 9 was set for the next court hearing in the three separate proceedings. All three lawyers waived the reading of charges and said they are going to delay entering a plea on behalf of their clients until further disclosure of evidence.

The RCMP has said that on the night of April 18, Lisa Banfield was handcuffed by the gunman, Gabriel Wortman, but managed to escape into nearby woods in Portapique, N.S. She emerged the next morning and told police at 6:30 a.m. that Wortman was driving a police replica vehicle.

Singleton said James Banfield is Lisa Banfield’s brother.

Our Morning Update and Evening Update newsletters are written by Globe editors, giving you a concise summary of the day’s most important headlines. Sign up today.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow topics related to this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.
Comments are closed

We have closed comments on this story for legal reasons or for abuse. For more information on our commenting policies and how our community-based moderation works, please read our Community Guidelines and our Terms and Conditions.

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies