Possible Prosecutorial Misconduct in the Case againts the Coutts Four?

Examining the case against Canada's political prisoners of the Freedom Convoy - 550 plus days in custody, denied bail

When one takes a close look at the RCMP investigation and raid that led to the arrest of the Coutts Four, during the border blockade in Coutts, Alberta in February 2022; it would appear there were some curious and even disturbing shenanigans going on with the whole case. Those shenanigans are now rearing their heads as the court proceedings in the trial of the Coutts Four stumbles along through June and July of 2023. Amid a series of pre-trial delays, motions and adjournments, allegations of wrongdoing on the part of Crown prosecutors have arisen resulting from a defence motion to have protected communications between the prosecution and the police released and made public. This situation has also resulted in the sudden recusal of Crown prosecutor Stephen Johnston and his co-counsel from this trial, meaning they are not longer prosecuting this case.

To date, the evidence offered by the Crown regarding the most serious charges against the Coutts Four— conspiracy to commit murder of police—is dubious at best. Much of the case rides on the revelations of two attractive female undercover RCMP members who ‘infiltrated’ the protesters, posing a ‘right wing’ activists, and reported what they determined was an ‘imminent threat’ that resulted in the raids and arrests of protesters. Yet, it would appear, thus far, that those undercover cops weren’t ‘wired’ to record conversations, so the case seems to rely on what they say they heard or learned during their undercover mission. And finally there is that widely circulated photo of allegedly confiscated weapons seized during the raids. And to put the icing on the cake, all of these accusations the RCMP made in this case, are what provided the Trudeau government its primary justification to invoke The Emergencies Act on the trucker’s Freedom Convoy in Ottawa.

The ‘Coutts Four’ as they have been dubbed are four Canadian citizens who were arrested as a result of the said investigation and raids. They were initially charged with mischief offences, but were later charged with the very serious crime of conspiracy to commit murder of police. That charge, is apparently the court’s rationale for denying them bail; meaning they have been in jail for some 550 days, and still counting!

These are the Coutts Four: Jerry Morin, a lineman and father of a young daughter, he is imprisoned in a Calgary remand centre — Anthony “Tony” a self-employed truck driver and farmer, he is being held in the Medicine Hat remand centre —Chris Lysak, an electrician and father of two girls, he is imprisoned, in the Lethbridge remand centre — Chris Carbert, a single father raising a son, and who owns a successful landscaping business with nine employees, he is imprisoned in the Lethbridge remand centre with Lysak. All four are Alberta residents and are in their 40s.

Only in Trudeau’s Canada, with his government’s catch and release bail reforms, can accused murderers, including those charged with actually killing a police officer, receive bail, Yet somehow these four men, who haven’t been accused of killing anybody or found guilty of anything yet, have remained in custody coming up on almost two years! Repeat offenders with rap sheets a mile long, are released on bail, after first, second and third offences, only to go on and commit more crimes, yet the Coutts Four don’t have what even what hints at criminal records.

To add insult to injury, they also don’t have the luxury of being in an actual prison, but instead are doing their time in remand facilities that lack many of the comforts, services and often privileges afforded inmates in actual penal institution. Yet, these men have been rotting in poorly equipped remand centres, where they sit primarily in solitary confinement, are fed sub-standard food, and virtually have little time to exercise or get outdoors. The question one has to ask is why are these men still behind bars—is this a political detention? Yet, what do we hear from legacy media about this injustice, or how about the government’s official opposition? Nothing but crickets.

To understand what has led up to these accusations of possible prosecutorial misconduct against the Crown, and the injustices the Coutts Four have thus far endured, one really has to go back to the beginning of the Coutts protest. A good overview of the entire events that lead up the arrest of the four men is required digest why these men, who have not yet been not found guilty of anything, have been incarcerated for over 550 days.

The Coutts border blockade was one of many protests that took place during the Freedom Convoy demonstration against the government imposed COVID restrictions and vaccine mandates. The protest in Ottawa in February of 2022 when the Trudeau government invoked the Emergencies Act and unleashed riot police on the protesters. The Coutts blockade – and the arrest of the Coutts four and the accusations of conspiracy to murder police and overthrow the government –  was one of the major catalysts used by the Trudeau government to invoke the Act, which brutally cleared the Freedom Convoy from the streets of downtown Ottawa. So, again, one might want to begin to ask whether or not the arrest and the treatment of these men who are supposed to be innocent, until proven guilty in a court of law, is politically motivated and intended to send a message to others who oppose the Trudeau government’s actions or policies.

And as I said at the outset, there are some pretty shady and disturbing things that occurred during the RCMP raids and the arrests of 13 people*, including the Coutts Four between February 13 and 14, 2022. This was, according to the RCMP carried out as part of a larger ‘very complex’  investigation into the ‘discovery’ of a ‘domestic terrorist’ cell, who ‘had attached itself to the protest.’ A ‘cache’ of weapons, thought to be associated with the ‘cell’ was also seized as a result of the raid. That is the picture that has been so widely circulated by the legacy media, which will be further discussed later in this article.

The RCMP Arrests of the Coutts Four and Others

The Coutts Four, according to the RCMP, were ‘identified’ as key members of that ‘cell’ and thus, were additionally charged with conspiracy to commit murder of police officers in support of a plot to overthrow the Government of Canada. It was shortly after these charges were laid that the Trudeau government invoked the Emergencies Act.

Despite being in a ‘cell’ these four men were not arrested together, and outside of Lysak and Carbert, who were friends, they hardly knew each other. Also, they were not charged with the conspiracy offence at the time of their arrests, yet they seemed to have been specifically targeted by police. Lysak was taken into custody on February 13th at around 21:00 hrs on the charge of threatening a police officer. This occurred in front of Smuggler’s Saloon where the protesters often gathered. Lysak apparently complemented a cop on the gun he was carrying and somehow that translated in to ‘threatening to take a police officer’s gun’. He was apparently roughed up at the time of his arrest, as evidenced by accounts of witnesses at the Saloon and actual videos taken of the event.

*Others charged as a result of the raid and investigation include Jaclyne Martin 39* (wife of Jerry Morin), who faces a mischief charge for allegedly obstructing Highway 4 near Coutts and a weapons charge for alleged possession of a firearm for dangerous purpose; Ursula Allred, 22, Luke Berk, 62; Evan Colenutt, 23; Johnson Law, 39; Justin Martin 22; Eastin Oler, 22; and Janx Zaremba 18. All have been charged with mischief over $5,000 and possession of a firearm for dangerous purposes, both of which are indictable offences carrying sentences of up to ten years in prison. Those arrested, with the exception again, of the ‘Coutts Four’ are out on bail, awaiting their trials, or have had their charges dropped.

When Olienick heard about Lysak’s arrest he began videotaping and posting online words to the effect that he wished the RCMP would ‘put their guns down and have coffee with us’, yet he made no attempt to leave Coutts fearing for his own arrest. He was arrested about 50 minutes later at 21:50 hrs and initially charged with mischief. Carbert, who also knew of the other arrests, was obviously not worried about being arrested himself, because he went to bed. He was awakened and arrested during the police raid of the trailer in which he staying. That occurred at around 24:30 hrs on February 14th.

Trailers raided by the RCMP.

Morin, also heard of the arrests and was on his way to work when he was ambushed by armed police in his truck and was arrested at around 12:00 hrs on the 14th of February. He too was charged with mischief and then initially detained at the High River RCMP Detachment. None of the men had firearms or weapons on them, or in their personal possession when they were arrested. 

The RCMP Raids and Further Arrests

Then there is the account of the main raid, which took place on the property of Joanne Person, a 62 year old grandmother and school teacher. Person, during the course of the protest, had helped feed and bring coffee to many of the protesters, and even gave shelter to some of them in her own home. She let them use her shower and even began doing their laundry. Eventually she allowed two trailers owned by a couple of the protesters to park on her property. So, how a grandmother, who was simply being a good samaritan, was subjected to a violent arrest at the hands of the RCMP is both shocking and disturbing. She says she was in her home at around midnight when the RCMP stormed her house with a search warrant, and placed her under arrest while ransacking her home along with the other two trailers on her property. Police seized a 22 calibre rifle found in a closet in her home. Person maintains she had forgotten it was even there as it had belonged to her ex-husband who had never reclaimed it–yet she was charged with possession of a weapon for dangerous purposes, as well as mischief.

Joanne Person says she was manhandled by police during her arrest.

When police arrested her, she says they they violently slammed her head onto the hood of the police cruiser cracking a couple of her teeth, and roughly handcuffed her behind her back before cramming her into the back of their cruiser with another terrified female (Ursla Allred) also under arrest. The two shared a concrete cell, that Person described as cold, filthy and smeared with feces. Over the course of the two days and nights she spent in custody, Person, who has a heart condition, was subjected to interrogations, never given details as to what she was charged with or why, and was deprived of her medication. Person has had her day in court, representing herself, and successfully fought the charges against her with assistance of an organization called Stand4Thee.

Some of the arrests and weapons charges against the others who were arrested during the RCMP raid are also highly questionable and unsettling. After the arrest of Jerry Morin, police searched the home that he shared with his common-law wife Jaclyne Martin, who was also arrested when she arrived at the High River RCMP Police Detachment upon hearing of Morin’s arrested. The police seized three rifles from their home, which included a shotgun–a pink shotgun—that Morin had given Martin for her birthday, which says she used exclusively for skeet shooting. All of the guns seized in their home were legally purchased, licensed and owned.

Jaclyne Martin charged with mischief and possession of a weapon for dangerous purposes—a pink shotgun?

Martin also maintains that while her arrest warrant makes it appear that she was arrested in Coutts, that was not the case, because as previously noted she was arrested and detained, with Morin, in High River. Martin says she was interrogated by different RCMP officers several times, and shown the ‘gun cache’ picture but she maintained she had no idea what that was about or why she was even being charged with anything.

The Photograph - Evidence or Propaganda?

Now here’s where some of other shenanigans begin with the RCMP investigation. In announcing the arrests the following day, the RCMP also released that photograph of the cache of weapons they maintain they seized as part of its raid. To begin with the photo looks staged, particularly in the way the weapons and ammunition were laid out. Don Best, a retired Toronto police investigator of 30 years, has been following the Coutts Four case, and has taken a close look at the photo. He says to any trained investigator the photo illustrates what he called ‘substandard and even suspect evidence handling’. For example, he noted that the tables on which the weapons were placed were set up in what appears to be a police garage or prisoner receiving area – not in a secure evidence room or office for processing. 

He maintains that competent police never would have placed and displayed the items on a table without individual protection. "Given that this is a major case involving a complex charge with multiple accused, I would expect that investigators would be meticulous in collecting evidence, especially in circumstances where, if evidence is not collected, protected, and preserved immediately, it cannot be collected later." He adds, "Had this been a competent investigation into the serious crime of conspiracy to murder police officers, any seized evidence would have been professionally collected, protected, preserved, and forensically examined. Competent police would never have placed items touching each other in close proximity so that hairs, skin flakes or other DNA-bearing evidence could be transferred from one item to another."

Retired Police Officer Don Best.

The RCMP officers in briefing the news media on the morning of the arrests indicated there were other ‘unidentified suspects’ of the purported ‘criminal organization’ that the accused allegedly belonged to and that they were continuing their efforts to learn the identity of the ‘other’ suspects. Given that, Best says, "If they were intent on identifying ‘other suspects’, would it not have made sense for RCMP to fingerprint and DNA-test seized items and to bag each item at the scene where it was found, both to protect the item from contamination and to secure and protect the item during transport to the police facility and then to the forensic lab, for further testing." And just as a general observation, one would also think that, for purposes of evidence and to document the ‘chain of custody’ they also would have taken photographs at the scene where the the weapons were found and seized–but no such photographs have ever been released by the RCMP in that regard.

Best said, "Despite the fact that this was an ongoing investigation, the RCMP in releasing a detailed photo of the seized firearms and other items, would have allowed the remaining ‘unidentified suspects’ to know if any of the firearms or equipment they supplied had been seized. This could have alerted suspects that the police were coming for them and thus allow them to dispose of any other evidence before the police arrived.’ Best also pointed out that the failure to place the evidence in bags could have also destroyed or ruined ‘exculpatory evidence’ that would support the accused. "The failure of the police officers to adhere to the fundamentals of professional evidence collection and protection doesn't just potentially weaken the prosecution's case, it can destroy important forensic evidence of innocence to the defence." It should also be noted, that it would appear those other ‘unidentified suspects’ were never found or arrested, because the RCMP have made no follow up announcement on their capture in the past year and a half.

Best also contrasted this handling of firearms in the Coutts investigation with the RCMP’s investigation of the multiple shootings in Nova Scotia massacre of 2022. Where, in that case the lead investigators refused to release any information on the types of weapons and certainly not photographs of the weapons involved. They refused to do so even at the behest of the RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki, because they were in the middle of investigation in determining where those weapons came from. 

Former RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki tried to pressure Nova Scotia RCMP to release details of guns used in the Nova Scotia mass shooting, to help the Liberals pass their gun legislation.

Commenting on the cache of weapons displayed in the photograph, experienced gun owner Zach Schmidt made these observations. “This is not what I would be choosing if I were to hypothetically try to take down the RCMP. There were about 50 RCMP vehicles in the Coutts vicinity and about a hundred officers. This just looks like someone’s basement was raided. A number of the guns are rifles that would be better for hunting deer. There are no sniper rifles, no precision rifles, they’re just run-of-the-mill hunting guns ” 

The Media Briefing on the Investigation, Raids and Arrests

Then we come to the media briefing given by Superintendent Roberta McKale the day after the raids and arrests.

McKale, seemed to look nervous, while at the same time while trying, but failing to look confident and triumphant, in a media briefing. She claimed, at one point during the briefing that the men–Lysack, Carbert, Morin and Olienkick–were part of a group, who had joined the protest later, implying they had not been there from the beginning. Yet, according to other protesters in Coutts, this was a lie, because the men, with the exception of Jerry Morin–who was working in Vancouver when the protest began – had been at the protest, off and on, from the beginning. 

Now if you watch this media briefing with McKale in its entirety, you get the impression that there is something off about it and her demeanor. She kicks off the briefing talking about an incident wherein a protester apparently tried to ram an RCMP cruiser with a type of front end loader. This, it would appear, is not even remotely connected with the raids and the arrests stemming from the investigation into a ‘domestic terror cell’. It is as if she was trying to set the stage, implying violence was beginning to erupt, ‘everywhere’ in this protest. You can watch the entire briefing in the link below.

Media briefing Superintendent Roberta McKale

Supporters of the Coutts Four, of which there are many gather at the Lethbridge Court House to protest their arrests and imprisonment—which many view as politically motivated.

The Trial

Now onto the trial, which actually hasn’t begun. The four men, although they have separate lawyers, were set to stand trial together before a judge and jury on June 12, 2023. The trial itself, however, did not begin on the 12th. Instead the court spent weeks dealing with pretrial applications and motions. The jury had not yet been impanelled, so this all occurred during what is called a voir dire, a separate hearing wherein the jury is not present, while the judge determines whether certain evidence is admissible.

During the first two days, Justice David Labrenz, presiding over the trial, heard arguments from Chris Carbert’s lawyer Catherine Beyak, seeking a publication ban on the Information to Obtain (ITO) documents the RCMP had used to apply for search warrants that ultimately led to the seizure of weapons and ammunition and the arrests. She argued that the information police provide to a judge in such ITOs is often one-sided and little more than theory, hearsay and conjecture, all of which has not been tested in court. She requested the ban to include information already unsealed and released to the public by a previous judge. Beyak told the court her client is concerned such information will be prejudicial should jury members have access to the information before it is presented at trial. The judge ultimately granted the publication ban despite objections from lawyers representing the legacy media and the Crown prosecutor. 

Lawyers for the defence then sought an adjournment due to the fact that the prosecution had not handed over all of the evidence connected with the investigation. They pointed out that, thus far, the defence had received 13 disclosure packages*, with some coming just a few days before the trial date. Defence lawyers maintained that the Crown had made three breaches in the matter of disclosure: failure to provide full disclosure, failure to provide timely disclosure, and failure or refusal to respond to additional disclosure requests. The defence argued that the men’s constitutional rights were violated because they were unable to make full answer and defence due to the late and incomplete disclosures by the prosecution.

*Disclosure is the evidence and information police and prosecutors have compiled to make a case against a person accused of a crime.

The accused’s lawyer is entitled to full disclosure of information from the Crown so they can mount a sound defence for their their client. But with the last minute delivery of some three thousand pages of new disclosure materials, the defence must have adequate time to comb through the new materials. This is not just a matter of a few days, it takes considerable time to painstakingly review new material to determine whether any of it might hurt or help their case, or require them to change their whole defence strategy.

 Now given the arrests were made in mid-February of 2022 and the trial date was set for mid-June of 2023, one would think the police and the prosecutors would have had ample time, well over a year, to go through the evidence to make their case and disclose information to the defence.Yet, the prosecution drops some three thousand pages of new disclosure materials on the defence lawyers just days before the trial was to commence. Is this another delay tactic, and if so, why the delay, who is to benefit from this? Certainly not the men who will remain in limbo and in jail. Justice Labrenz granted the defence the adjournment, yet did not appear give the prosecution any type of strong rebuke for its behaviour regarding disclosures.

Accusations of Prosecutorial Misconduct?

The Coutts Four were back in court in July where something unusual arose. Apparently the Crown, in their last disclosure to the defence, provided them with some information that the it had intended to redact. Based on that unredacted information, the defence came forward to allege that the Crown prosecutor had given false and illegal instructions to the police leading up to the arrest of the men. They further claimed that this had been an illegal act and requested that this, and more information regarding prosecutor-police communication be released in that regard.

While this type of communication is covered by solicitor-client privilege—meaning it is secret—they argued that it should be made public as they believe the Crown instructed the police in improper ways. The Crown responded by entering into evidence a new ‘surprise’ affidavit’—i.e. more last minute disclosure. The defence then was forced to seek another adjournment in order to review, yet again, more last minute information from the Crown. The affidavit was not admitted as evidence, however the judge again adjourned the trial. He called this adjournment to give himself time to review the defence’s application seeking to have the prosecutor-police communication materials ‘unsealed’ and made public. It was also during this juncture in the court proceeding that Crown prosecutor Steven Johnston and his co-counsel were recused.

The court proceedings resumed in late August with the Justice Labrenz returning to release his judgement regarding the defence’s application to have the prosecutor-police communications package unsealed. The judge, in short, approved the defences’s application, with instructions that the package be delivered to his chambers by the crown prosecutor forthwith. For his reasoning on his decision, he cited a considerable amount of case law and legal precedents. The Crown prosecutor who had replaced Johnston, seemingly agreed to do as the judge had ordered. Justice Labrenz, however, indicated that he was going on vacation the following day and would be gone a few weeks, and therefore would not be able to review the package contents until he returned. He did tell both the prosecutors and defence attorneys to make themselves available for court dates, upon his return in September. And that is where the case now sits. So, the Coutts Four remain in jail for least for more weeks.

The defence maintain that the prosecutor-police communications materials contain some very damaging information as it pertains the to the Crown prosecutor’s actions, which could completely blow up its entire case against the Coutts Four. Yet, not a single member of the legacy media was in court to hear the justice’s decision. It has not been reported by any media, not even independent media like True North and Rebel News It certainly gives one pause to wonder why such a high profile case, that garnered a great amount of media coverage upon the arrests and arraignments of these men, is now being virtually ignored when allegations of prosecutorial misconduct have arisen.