VANCOUVER, December 1, 2004
The Globe and Mail

The veneer of polite deference at the Air-India trial cracked yesterday, a few days before the historic proceedings are expected to wind down.

In a sudden shift in the mood of the courtroom, veteran defence lawyer Richard Peck slammed prosecution lawyers for making numerous personal attacks during their final submissions to court.

The nature and tenor of the prosecution's approach was lamentable, he said on the 214th day of the trial. The courts would "descend into instability" if highly personal barbs were tolerated, Mr. Peck said.

He also tore into the prosecution's courtroom tactics. "If this was a jury trial, we may very well be in position to ask for a mistrial," Mr. Peck said.

Prosecutors repeatedly referred to inadmissible evidence, tried to give evidence themselves, misstated evidence and urged the judge to engage in speculation, rather than rely on logical inference based on facts, he said.

Working down a lengthy list of irritants, Mr. Peck said prosecutors quoted him as saying things he never said and attributed attitudes to the defence that were "offensive in the extreme . . . nothing short of scurrilous."

He also accused prosecutors of going "beyond the pale" when they made submissions inconsistent with admissions of fact they had accepted earlier in the trial.

An admission of fact, signed by senior prosecutor Robert Wright and the defence in May of 2003, enabled lawyers to accept some facts in the case without further proof, he said.

The admission dealt with whether defendant Ajaib Singh Bagri, Mr. Peck's client, was seen getting out of his car outside the home of alleged Air-India mastermind Talwinder Singh Parmar on the evening before bombs were loaded on aircraft at the Vancouver airport.

Both defence and prosecution lawyers agreed that the person getting out of the car was not Mr. Bagri. But in final submissions, the prosecution suggested it could have been him.

The defence relied on the admission in presenting evidence and the prosecution should not be entitled to walk away from it at the end of the trial, he said.

In separate submissions earlier, prosecutors Joe Bellows and Richard Cairns had asked the court to refuse to hear a portion of the defence's final rebuttal to the prosecution case.

Mr. Justice Ian Bruce Josephson, who will decide the case without a jury, rejected their requests.

"It is important there be generosity in determining what is an appropriate reply," the B.C. Supreme Court judge said.

No one should go away thinking justice has not been achieved because the court applied a too strict interpretation, he said, before allowing the defence lawyers to continue with their submissions.

Lawyers on opposing sides have been civil throughout most of the trial, although they have occasionally made sharp personal comments about one another.

The judge is expected to withdraw to consider his verdict by week's end.

Mr. Bagri and Vancouver businessman Ripudaman Singh Malik are charged with murder in the death of 331 people in two bomb explosions on June 23, 1985. More than 35 lawyers have been involved in the case since the two men were arrested on Oct. 27, 2000.