On July 5, 2012, the Learned Honourable Justice P. Williamson, of the BC Supreme Court, rendered his Decision on the Trial, and returned and found Vinepal NOT GUILTY (ACQUITTALS) on the charges in the Indictment which contained two counts: 1)  NOT GUILTY: MURDER OF NAIB TOOR IN THE 2ND DEGREE; and 2) NOT GUILTY: ATTEMPTED MURDER OF  RAZIA SALLAM.

The Court went on to find it suprising that the conversation of the undercover officer, who was sent in as a “cell plant” was not audio or video recorded, given the sophisticaion of technology in the RCMP Detachment.

In a more bizzare twist in the case, an RCMP Exhibit Officer with over 26 years experience in the Force, also bagged certain evidence including a garbage bag from a bin from the Crime Scene, which unbenkownst to her, contained feces.  However, the officer failed to make a note of the contents of the bag or otherwise inspect the bag for forensic evidence, and was discovered only at the trial, when the exhibit was demanded by the Defence to be presented from RCMP Forensics Lab.  The evidence from the officer was that the bag was empty. Onlookers from the gallery were stunned, when in fact the defence’s assertions were found to be true, and in fact, the material was found in the bag as the unsuspecting Crown Attorney reached into the bag and pulled out the material contained within a smaller bag.  The cheerful Court clerk throughout the Trial was helpful and assisted with all the Exhibits, and remained in control of the volume of Exhibits, within the Voir Dire, and outside the Voir Dire, and kept the case running smoothly, often without much assistance from counsel.

It was held that the reliability of the evidence of the Complainant, Razia Sallam, was called into question, and that it would be unfit to find a Criminal Conviction on her evidence standing alone.

The Court had also previuoslly held in the case, that a 4.5 hour interrogation by IHIT (Integrated Homicide Investigation Team) of the Accused be Suppressed as it was held to be Involuntary, and that one of the Officer’s had as a Finding of Fact, induced the Accused, by suggesting that he if he didn’t talk now, it would adversely affect the Accused.  The Accused had asserted his Right to Silence, and that he wanted to make his statement to his lawyer, Dil Gosal over 39 times.  Mr.Gosal submitted that the officers were All Sail, and No Anchor, with the Accused trying to stop the interrogation with an anchor.  His efforts were met with deflection of the Rights asserted and redirection, as a custodial interrogation technique.

Mr. Gosal submitted that the Latent Darkenss of the state had overreached Constitutionally Permissible Conduct, in terms of the  threats and inducements prong, long prohibited, as encunciated in the English case of Ibrahim, (1852) 169 E.R. 568 (C.A.), followed in Canada by Rex v. Prosko (1922) 63 S.C.R. 226.  Citations were also made to modern expansive approach focusing on the Operating Mind, and Meaningful Choice Jurisprudence of the Confession Rule,  in Regina v. Oikcle, (2000)  2 S.C.R. 3; R. v. Hebert, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 151; R. v. Ciliberto (BCSC);

The Court did go on  to find that Vinepal could not have the requisite intent for Murder due to his intoxication as well, and found lesser included offences of aggravated assault, and manslaughter, with the Sentencing Hearing is now set for Sept. 20, 2012.

The Judgement continues to be studied by the Defence.

Comments are closed.