Key witness unreliable, lawyer says
A woman testified to hearing confessions by Ripudaman Singh Malik

October 20, 2004,

VANCOUVER, October 20, 2004

TheThe Vancouver Sun key Crown witness against Ripudaman Singh Malik is "neither reliable nor credible" and the accused Air India bomber should not be convicted on the basis of the woman's testimony, Malik lawyer David Crossin argued Monday.

Crossin opened the final submissions phase of the historic Air India trial by stating that the unprecedented terrorism case against his client and co-accused Ajaib Singh Bagri has tested the judicial system like no other in history.

"We believe the circumstances of this case would present an extraordinary challenge to all and certainly from the point of view of defence counsel," Crossin said.

He commented on the "sheer size of the human and monetary investment which in turn generated unparalleled public discussion and speculation, particularly in the Sikh community."

Crossin said the key witness against his client, a former daycare supervisor who testified that Malik fell in love with her and confessed, cannot be relied upon to convict the former Sikh community leader.

"The case for the Crown in our submission against Mr. Malik stands or falls on the evidence of [the woman,]" Crossin said. "It is our position that the evidence of [the woman] is neither reliable nor credible and it will be shown to be false."

The woman, whose identity is protected by court order, spent weeks on the stand last fall, describing how she became a close confidante of Malik during five years working with him at Surrey's Khalsa School.

She said they shared a platonic love that led to at least two confessions of his involvement in the June 1985 Air India bombing. But their relationship soured as he became distrustful of her and she was forced to turn to law enforcement after a series of threats, she testified. She is now in the witness protection program.

Crossin told Justice Ian Bruce Josephson that the woman's evidence is full of credibility gaps, as is the evidence of a series of other Crown witnesses against Malik.

Despite "the palpable horror of the crime itself," the usual constitutional principle must apply, which is that no person shall be convicted unless there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, Crossin said.

The high-security B.C. Supreme court room was packed for the beginning of the final arguments with relatives of victims of the terrorist attack, journalists and supporters of the accused men, who appeared relaxed as they took their seats.

Crossin attacked the credibility of the Crown theory that Malik was motivated by revenge against the Indian government for its attack on the Golden Temple, Sikhism's holiest shrine, in June 1984.

The Crown spent part of the 18-month trial laying out its theory that Malik and Bagri were part of a B.C.-based Sikh separatist group headed by mastermind Talwinder Singh Parmar which plotted against India's national airline to retaliate for the Golden Temple attack.

Crossin noted that Malik did not even adhere to a widely-called-for boycott of Indian institutions, and continued to have an account with the State Bank of India between 1984 and 1988.