The Surrey Six murder case, 13 years after the killings, is now in the hands of three appeal court judges.
Their judgment has been reserved and is expected to be released 鈥渋n due course.鈥�
The British Columbia Court of Appeal began a six-day hearing Oct. 15 on conviction appeals in Regina v. Haevischer and Regina versus Johnston which wrapped up on Oct. 23.
The appellants, Matthew James Johnston and Cody Rae Haevisher, were convicted of murdering six people in suite 1505 of the Balmoral Tower in Whalley on Oct. 19, 2007. The Crown鈥檚 theory was that the killings were payback for an unpaid debt between rival gangs. This is contained in 375 pages of factums, or written arguments, which the judges are poring over.
Dan McLaughlin, spokesman for the British Columbia Prosecution Service, noted the appeal court does not typically give a date as to when it will release its decisions.
鈥淭hey don鈥檛 ever do that,鈥� he said Tuesday. 鈥淭hey give us a head鈥檚 up a week before it鈥檚 going to come out.鈥�
Christopher Mohan, 22, was one of six men shot dead in gang violence in a penthouse suite on the 15th floor of the tower. He shared a suite with his mom Eileen Mohan on that same floor and had she been home at the time, she likely would have shared his fate. She was the only person allowed in the courtroom, other than of course the judges, lawyers and staff, as she has followed proceedings from day one.
鈥淭hey will come back with their findings some time in spring of 2021,鈥� Mohan told the Now-Leader. 鈥淏etween March and May.
鈥淚t was quite difficult to sit and listen to everything,鈥� she said.
Christopher Mohan and Abbotsford gasfitter Ed Shellenberg, 55, were innocent victims who accidentally stumbled upon a drug hit in progress. Edward Sousakhone Narong, 22, Ryan Bartolomeo, 19, and brothers Michael Justin Lal, 26, and Corey Jason Michael Lal, 21, were also slain.
Justices David Franklin Tysoe, Anne MacKenzie and Peter Willcock heard the appeals.
The defence appealed the convictions on grounds the accused were excluded from a hearing that was part of the trial, creating 鈥渦nfairness,鈥� and that a new trial should be ordered because the trial judge 鈥渆rred in her assessment of the reliability鈥� of evidence from two 鈥淰etrovec鈥� witnesses. Such a witness is considered to be unsavoury, or disreputable. The name comes from a Supreme Court of Canada case in 1982, Vetrovec v. The Queen, concerning a conspiracy to traffic in heroin.
The Crown鈥檚 response, contained in a factum, is that the judge 鈥渄id not err in excluding the appellants鈥� because they didn鈥檛 have a right to be present 鈥渨hen information which could tend to identify an informer was revealed,鈥� and that the trial judge did not err in assessing the Vetrovec witnesses evidence.
The appellant鈥檚 joint factum also alleged abuse of process and failure on the part of the Crown to disclose evidence. Both men advanced separate grounds for appeal.
The Crown, in one of its respondent factums, argued that the appellants have 鈥渇ailed to demonstrate any basis upon which this Court may interfere with the judge鈥檚 exercise of discretion.
鈥淣o useful purpose would be served by an evidentiary hearing in the trial court,鈥� the Crown鈥檚 document reads. 鈥淪uch a hearing will never alter the underlying facts. The appellants were found guilty of horrific crimes. Intending to kill one drug rival to make an example of him and to advance their drug trafficking gang鈥檚 turf, they murdered six men, two of whom were unconnected with the drug trade, execution-style as those men lay defenceless on the floor.
鈥淭he appellants and their Red Scorpion(鈥淩S鈥�) gang associate chose this wanton and pitiless violence over the option of simply abandoning their callous, dangerous and risky plan,鈥� a portion of the Crown鈥檚 factum reads. 鈥淭he resulting carnage was unspeakable. A stay of proceedings will always be a disproportionate response. This ground of appeal ought to be dismissed.鈥�
tom.zytaruk@surreynowleader.com
Like us on and follow Tom on
