Chapter Updates

« Border Search of E-Devices Ruled Unconstitutional | Main | Foreign Nationals Jumping Bail on Sexual Assault Charges: Why Won't Canada Do Anything? »

05 March 2021


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

El roam

Important case or issue these days. Worth noting, that, notwithstanding the pandemic, and being or residing in foreign state, the judge, has stated clearly, other reason for denying the motion for virtual trial:

And it is, the lack of concrete plan and right infrastructure, for overcoming fundamental technological issues here.

I quote for example:

" Counsel frankly admitted there were a number of challenges he had not thought of such as, how would an Internet connection be facilitated for multiple laptops, who would obtain and pay for the laptops on which the Zoom platform could be used. Counsel suggested possible solutions, to quote him, “on the fly” during his submissions."


"The Crown points out the case is complex. They intend to call 20 witnesses, rely on surveillance video evidence, tender still photographs, have witnesses comment on these pieces of evidence and point out things in this evidence. They intend to play 911 calls. There is no evidence before me to explain how the Berents would be able to see this evidence. Zoom video technology generally captures a headshot of the speakers. Most people now have a familiarity with Zoom technology. The more participants on the call, the smaller the image becomes of each camera shot. While I am aware of presentation features, where the screen is filled with only the presentation by a presenter, this would not work in a criminal trial where the participants need to be visible to each other at all times. There is a real concern the Berents would not be able to effectively see and appreciate the evidence that was being led against them."


The comments to this entry are closed.