The Surrey Six murder case, 13 years after the killings, is once again before the courts.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal on Wednesday began hearing conviction appeals in Regina v. Haevischer and Regina versus Johnston during what害羞草研究所檚 expected to be a three-day webcast.

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害羞草研究所檚 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 must pore over.

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 on that same floor and had she been home at the time, she likely would have shared his fate.

She was in court Wednesday.

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 are hearing the appeals.

The defence appeals the convictions on grounds the accused were excluded from a hearing that was part of the trial, creating 害羞草研究所渦nfairness,害羞草研究所� and that a new trial should be ordered because the trial judge 害羞草研究所渆rred in her assessment of the reliability害羞草研究所� of evidence from two 害羞草研究所淰etrovec害羞草研究所� 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害羞草研究所檚 response, contained in a factum, is that the judge 害羞草研究所渄id not err in excluding the appellants害羞草研究所� because they didn害羞草研究所檛 have a right to be present 害羞草研究所渨hen information which could tend to identify an informer was revealed,害羞草研究所� and that the trial judge did not err in assessing the Vetrovec witnesses evidence.

The appellant害羞草研究所檚 joint factum also alleges abuse of process and failure on the part of the Crown to disclose evidence. Both also are advancing separate grounds for appeal.

The Crown, in one of its respondent factums, argues that the appellants have 害羞草研究所渇ailed to demonstrate any basis upon which this Court may interfere with the judge害羞草研究所檚 exercise of discretion.

害羞草研究所淣o useful purpose would be served by an evidentiary hearing in the trial court,害羞草研究所� the Crown害羞草研究所檚 document continues. 害羞草研究所淪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害羞草研究所檚 turf, they murdered six men, two of whom were unconnected with the drug trade, execution-style as those men lay defenceless on the floor.

害羞草研究所淭he appellants and their Red Scorpion(害羞草研究所淩S害羞草研究所�) gang associate chose this wanton and pitiless violence over the option of simply abandoning their callous, dangerous and risky plan,害羞草研究所� a portion of the Crown害羞草研究所檚 factum reads. 害羞草研究所淭he resulting carnage was unspeakable. A stay of proceedings will always be a disproportionate response. This ground of appeal ought to be dismissed.害羞草研究所�

tom.zytaruk@surreynowleader.com
Like us on and follow Tom on