The father of a murdered 13-year-old girl did not bring a gun into a Vancouver courtroom eight weeks ago, on the day Ibrahim Ali was convicted of the killing, the man’s lawyer has told a B.C. Supreme Court hearing.
Brock Martland, who represents the father, said it’s an “unfounded proposition” that Ali’s lawyers have repeated several times, aiming to exclude the man from post-trial proceedings on safety grounds.
“[The man] did not have a gun in the courtroom,” Martland told the court Friday.
“I’m not asking the court to accept that as fact. That is our position. That matter is before the Vancouver Police Department and we respect and trust their investigation.”
The man can’t be named because of a publication ban on the identity of his daughter, who was found dead in a Burnaby, B.C., park in 2017.
Ali’s trial lawyers, Kevin McCullough and Ben Lynskey, are refusing to show up to court for post-trial proceedings. They have instead sent their colleague, Tim Russell, to argue their application to exclude the father.
McCullough said in a December interview that Victoria police told him the victim’s father brought a loaded Glock gun to court on Dec. 8 with an “intent to kill.”
Martland said his client “is a victim of unfounded accusations,” saying defence counsel’s assertions about him have been “reckless.”
“The words they have used have been grandiose, unfounded, irresponsible and unfair,” he said.
Martland said he doesn’t dispute McCullough and Lynskey’s fears, but argued his client should be allowed to continue listening to the proceedings remotely through a Mandarin court interpreter.
“Despite the existence of subjective fear, which we’re not taking issue with, that fear does not rise to the level, doesn’t reasonably support complete exclusion,” Martland said.
“The court has the authority to exclude a person, (in) opposition to the presumption of open court. Exclusion from court is exceptional.”
He later added that policing who attends open court, virtually or in person, would be “quite impractical and perhaps impossible.”
Court documents show the father will appear at Surrey provincial court later this month in relation to the disposal of items police seized from him on Dec. 9, the day after the verdict in Ali’s case.
A spokeswoman for the BC Prosecution Service previously said the man also faced a “prohibition order.”
A “prohibition order” under the Criminal Code can refer to a ban on possessing a “firearm, crossbow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition and explosive substance.”
Russell said in his submission Monday that throughout much of the trial, McCullough and Lynskey had received threats that “escalated until Dec. 8 when (the victim’s father) brought a gun into the courtroom.”
He told the court the lawyers find the man’s “presence in the courtroom, even virtually, distracting.” If the man is permitted to continue to attend, it would “have a profound effect” on the lawyers’ ability to defend Ali, Russell said.
Russell said he and McCullough had jointly contacted a Vancouver police officer for an update on Thursday. He said they were told the investigation was ongoing and “video has been reviewed and witness interviews are continuing.”
“He confirmed that firearms – and he used the plural – were seized in connection with this investigation,” Russell said of the officer.
He said the officer confirmed that, on at least two occasions in December, police increased security around the courthouse during post-trial proceedings.
In response, Martland argued the update by police “only strengthens” his point as police have not yet arrested his client.
Crown lawyer Daniel Porte told the court Friday that the prosecution does not have any knowledge about the facts of the investigation.
It would be “unprofessional” and “entirely inappropriate for the trial Crown to be involved due to conflict of interest,” he added.
But Porte said the girl’s father is considered a victim under the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and has the right to know the location of proceedings in relation to the offence, as well as when they will take place, their progress and their outcome.
Porte said the Crown also believes the judge should consider the fact the trial has ended and there is one more application to be heard before sentencing.
Counsel and Ali were given permission to attend the court virtually and are not required to disclose their physical location, Porte said.
He also noted various security measures had been implemented since the verdict.
“Proceedings have been moved to a secure courtroom where the participants and the public are separated, and parties entering the courtrooms have been required to enter through a security gate on most occasions,” he added.
The proceedings were heard in Courtroom 20, a high-security room built specifically for the Air India terrorism trial. The court is surrounded by bulletproof glass that separates it from the public gallery.
Justice Lance Bernard is expected to make a ruling on the matter next week.
Ali, who appeared by video Friday, was convicted of first-degree murder. He is yet to be sentenced but faces a mandatory life term with no chance of parole for 25 years.