Bail decision overruled for accused in meth haul

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 28/03/2024 (738 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

A judge overruled the decision to release a man accused of driving 406 kilograms of methamphetamine across the Canada-U.S. border at Boissevain earlier this year, denying his bail and ordering him back behind bars.

“It would be a blow to the administration of justice if the order of (bail) is maintained,” Judge John Menzies said in a King’s Bench courtroom on Wednesday afternoon.

The Crown brought what it described as a “relatively rare” bail review application against Komalpreet Singh Sidhu of Winnipeg, who was granted bail in Brandon provincial court on Feb. 1. He was required to wear an ankle bracelet, pay $20,000 in bail, abide by a curfew and meet other court-ordered conditions.

Sidhu, 29, is facing charges of importing, exporting and trafficking methamphetamine after Canada Border Services Agency officers seized 406 kilograms of the drug while inspecting the semi-truck he was attempting to drive across the Boissevain border crossing on Jan. 14. The Crown said the estimated street value of the drugs seized was between $40 to $50 million. The charges against Sidhu have not been proven in court and he remains innocent until proven guilty.

The Crown argued that provincial court Judge Patrick Sullivan, who granted Sidhu bail, made an error in law in considering the strength of the Crown’s case and that the decision to grant Sidhu bail has shaken the public’s confidence in the justice system.

“At the end of the day, the question is this, my Lord,” Crown attorney Janna Hyman told the court. “Would public confidence in the administration of justice be shaken by an accused, who knowingly brings a staggering among of this serious drug into our community for profit, causing mass misery, (when he) is granted (bail)? And in the Crown’s submission, the answer to that question is yes.”

Hyman called Sullivan’s description of the drug seizure as one of the largest in Manitoba history an understatement. She called the 400 kilograms “unheard of” in Manitoba, as amounts that would be considered large are 40 to 50 kilograms.

She cited some of the evidence the Crown has against Sidhu, including the allegation that he sent a photo of the trailer showing an empty space where the drugs were found when he arrived at the border.

When he arrived at the border, the load was sealed, and CBSA needed wire cutters to remove the seal, the Crown alleged. One of the phones that was found was allegedly equipped with an app that wiped the phone as soon as an attempt was made to access the phone without first putting in the password.

“How did this happen? What is the possible explanation for this?” Hyman said. “There is only one in my submission.”

Hyman argued that the Crown’s case against Sidhu is strong, and that Sullivan not only didn’t properly assess this, but also that he did not place enough weight on the public interest consideration for granting or denying bail.

Sidhu’s defence lawyer, Katherine Smith, argued that Sullivan did not make any errors in his decision and said there have been no new facts in the case to give reason for a bail review. She said defence is still waiting for more disclosure, including any interviews that may have been conducted with anyone at the shipping dock or loading company, conversations between Sidhu and his dispatcher and GPS logs from his truck.

“The real quarrel in this case seems to be, from the defence’s perspective, the fact that the presumption of innocence continues to apply equally to Mr. Sidhu regardless of the amount of drugs that he was found to have in the back of his truck,” Smith said.

The defence lawyer said her client has been abiding by his release conditions since he was granted bail on Feb. 1.

“The Crown in their notice of motion takes issue with every factor in favour of Mr. Sidhu having been considered and complains that every factor in their favour was not given sufficient weight,” Smith said. “It’s quite clear that they believe a different decision ought to have been made, but that doesn’t entitle the Crown to a new hearing or an opportunity to turn his bail hearing into the trial.”

She argued that the provincial court judge did carefully consider all grounds for bail, including the public interest, which was evidenced by the fact that a special-sitting bail hearing was held for the matter.

At a bail hearing, she said, the judge must also consider the defence that is available to the accused, adding that many similar cases result in acquittals because of the inability to prove whether the driver had knowledge of the drugs in the trailer.

Smith argued that the judge’s decision was legally correct and that the bail review was an attempt by the Crown to have another judge re-weigh the factors in the case for deciding whether to grant bail.

After hearing the submissions of both the Crown and defence, Menzies took half an hour to make his decision.

He said Sidhu’s matter was a difficult case for the court and called the charges extremely serious. The judge said a bail appeal is not for him to decide whether or not he agrees with the bail decision, but rather to decide whether or not the judge made an error in granting the accused release.

Menzies said Sidhu’s bail plan was very strong, but he was not satisfied that Sullivan explained how the public interest part of the bail decision was met.

“In my opinion, a reasonably well-informed member of the public would be shocked and possibly appalled that a bail would be granted in these circumstances,” Menzies said, citing the size and value of the drugs seized before denying Sidhu’s bail.

Sidhu was escorted out of the courtroom by court sheriffs. His matter will next appear in Court of King’s Bench in Brandon on April 15.

» gmortfield@brandonsun.com

» Twitter: @geena_mortfield