Meng Wanzhou leaves her home as she heads to B.C. Supreme Court in Vancouver on March 3, 2021.JONATHAN HAYWARD/The Canadian Press
A Crown lawyer is urging a B.C. Supreme Court judge to ignore the “geopolitical winds swirling around” Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou’s extradition case and focus instead on the legal context.
Robert Frater told Associate Chief Justice Heather Holmes that Ms. Meng’s legal team is trying to bring the elephant into the room by introducing arguments centred on comments made by former U.S. president Donald Trump about the case.
“With respect, we urge you to focus on the facts and the law and leave the politics to the politicians,” Mr. Frater said Thursday.
He made the comments in response to claims from Ms. Meng’s legal team that Mr. Trump’s words 10 days after her arrest at Vancouver’s airport in December, 2018, represented a threat and poisoned the Canadian proceedings.
Mr. Trump was asked by media if he would intervene in the case to get a better deal in trade talks with China, and he responded that he would “certainly intervene” if he thought it was necessary.
Ms. Meng is wanted in the United States on fraud charges that both she and Huawei deny. Her lawyers allege Mr. Trump’s comments constitute an abuse of process and they are asking for a stay of proceedings.
“Everyone in this courtroom knows that the elephant in the room in this case has always been the geopolitical winds that swirl around it,” Mr. Frater told the judge. “We’re confident that when you look at the facts and apply the law, you will dismiss this motion.”
On Wednesday, Ms. Meng’s team sought to tie her case to a long-brewing technological race between the United States and China.
Huawei’s success in establishing 5G wireless technology worldwide represents an “existential threat” to the United States and Ms. Meng’s case is unfolding amid an effort by the U.S. government to “debilitate, if not destroy, Huawei,” lawyer Richard Peck said.
Mr. Peck noted that in February, 2020, then-U. S. attorney general William Barr said the stakes could not be higher and likened the race to the Cold War.
Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has warned against doing business with Huawei and White House press secretary Jen Psaki has described Huawei as an “untrusted vendor” and a “threat to the security of the U.S.,” Mr. Peck said.
“This campaign is bipartisan and continues in full vigour today,” he said.
Mona Duckett, another lawyer for Ms. Meng, told the court she couldn’t demonstrate in any concrete way how the fairness of the extradition hearing has been directly affected by the conduct of the United States. But she argued Mr. Trump’s comments created an “aura” or “atmosphere in which this human being has had to litigate these proceedings.”
Mr. Frater, representing Canada’s attorney-general, sought to redirect the judge’s attention Thursday. There is a rigorous test to meet the threshold of an abuse of process warranting a stay of proceedings and Ms. Meng’s argument doesn’t pass it, he said.
The threshold outlined by the Supreme Court of Canada says there must be prejudice to the accused’s right to a fair trial or to the integrity of the justice system and there must be no alternative remedy. Where there is still uncertainty, the court must balance the interests of the accused and the societal interest in having the case heard, Mr. Frater said.
In the balancing act, the court should consider that the fraud charges are serious and Ms. Meng isn’t an ordinary person, but the chief financial officer of one of the largest telecommunications companies in the world, he said. Someone with “the resources to hire a battalion of lawyers, who has the full backing of a powerful state, is in a different position factually than an indigent or vulnerable individual,” Mr. Frater said.
In regard to the first two steps, comments by politicians including Mr. Trump on the case have not approached the level of threat required to compromise the legal test. And Mr. Trump’s failure to win re-election has only weakened the argument, Mr. Frater said.
“This application, in our submission, was based on the thinnest of evidence. That evidence only got worse over time, there’s been material changes in circumstance that have removed the basis for it,” Mr. Frater said.
The political commentary has in no way affected the proceedings, he said.
“They’ve had a hearing which has observed and continues to observe the highest standards of fairness.”
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.