Day 36 of the trial of Tamara Lich and Chris Barber began with lawyers for Lich arguing that certain videos and statements made by Ms. Lich should be admitted as evidence of the truth of their contents under a hearsay exception and the "complete evidence rule."
1/ Good Morning, everyone. It’s Day 36 of the Tamara Lich trial in Ottawa. I’m Mark Joseph - senior litigation counsel at TDF and I’ll be live tweeting this week. (Adam sends his regards.)
— The Democracy Fund (@TDF_Can) March 13, 2024
Eric Granger - counsel for Ms. Lich - takes the Court through the jurisprudence on the issue. Mr. Granger suggests that it would be unfair for the Crown to "cherry pick" inculpatory statements and videos: he argues that case law allows a court to consider the entirety of statements if they are so related as to comprise a single narrative.
8/ The defence references the “hold the line” comment: Mr. Granger suggests that taking comments in isolation is unfair. The defence wants the entirety of Lich’s selected statements admitted for the truth of their contents (presumably under a hearsay exception). This provides…
— The Democracy Fund (@TDF_Can) March 13, 2024
In response, the Crown suggests that the defence is seeking to have statements admitted for the truth of their contents that are hearsay and are not, in fact, so related that they form a single narrative.
During the afternoon session, Diane Magas - counsel for Chris Barber - then made her arguments on the issue. She noted that the Crown had charged her client with counselling mischief: as part of this, they must prove the actus reus - "guilty act." This "guilty act" is composed of the spoken words, evidenced by the statements and videos.
Accordingly, she suggested that the exculpatory statements of her client should be admitted in addition to those statements that the Crown claims are inculpatory.
The court will continue to hear arguments from Ms. Magas tomorrow morning, and give the Crown time to respond.
Disclaimer: Please remember this update is given for information purposes only. It is not legal advice. If you have a legal issue, you should consult a lawyer for specific advice.