Front Burner - B.C. alleged terrorism case called a 'travesty of justice'

Episode Date: December 21, 2018

"From the justice system's point of view, you also have these bigger questions about how to conduct terrorism investigations, and investigations into these elaborate societal issues where we have fears about the crimes that people might commit." Today on Front Burner, senior reporter for CBC Vancouver, Jason Proctor, explains why a B.C. couple accused of planning a bomb plot had their convictions stayed due to entrapment and abuse of process by the RCMP.

Hey there, I'm David Common. If you're like me, there are things you love about living in the GTA and things that drive you absolutely crazy. Every day on This Is Toronto, we connect you to what matters most about life in the GTA, the news you gotta know, and the conversations your friends will be talking about. Whether you listen on a run through your neighbourhood or while sitting in the parking lot that is the 401, check out This Is Toronto, wherever you get your podcasts. This is a CBC Podcast. Hello, I'm Jamie Poisson. It's July 2nd, 2013, and at police headquarters in Surrey, B.C., a press conference is underway. On July 1st, the RCMP arrested and charged John Stewart Nuttall and Amanda Cordy.

The RCMP announced they just stopped a terrorism plot. The RCMP announced they just stopped a terrorism plot. And two suspects, John Nuttall and Amanda Cority, are charged with trying to detonate pressure cooker bombs in front of the province's legislative building on Canada Day. Investigation revealed that these individuals were inspired by Al-Qaeda ideology. You may have remembered this case. It was all over the news at the time. But fast forward to today. More than five years later, there's a very different take on what happened back then. On Wednesday, B.C.'s Court of Appeal upheld a ruling that Nuttall and Carotti were entrapped by the RCMP. The judges called this case a travesty of justice. So, what got us here? And what does this say about the way Canada deals

with alleged terrorism charges? Today on FrontBurner, I'm talking to Jason Proctor. He's been covering this case from the beginning. He's a senior reporter with CBC Vancouver. Hey, Jason. Hi, Jamie. Thanks so much for coming on the pod today. Well, thank you for having me. The appeal judgment in this case contains some scathing comments about the RCMP's rule that they went far beyond investigating a crime. That's a quote. That, quote, the police did everything necessary to facilitate the plan.

In practical terms, can you help me understand what that means? Well, as you say, I mean, they called it a travesty of justice, the investigation. So in practical terms for the RCMP, I mean, what the appeal court found and kind of upheld was the idea that this couple were ultimately entrapped into committing this crime by the police. So, I mean, the practical implications for the couple is they're ultimately free after this kind of five-year odyssey. It still could go to the Supreme Court of Canada. But from RCMP and from the justice system's kind of point of view, you also have these bigger questions about how to conduct terrorism investigations and investigations into these sort of elaborate societal issues where we have fears

about the crimes that people might commit. So in order to understand how we got to those words, I think we have to go back a little bit. These charges are the result of an RCMP investigation named Project Souvenir. The RCMP, they announced charges after Canada Day in 2013. I remember when this happened. It was just a few months after the Boston Marathon bombings. And what did the police say at the time? Yeah, you know, I went back and looked over my sort of old files because I went to the original police press conference,

which was a giant thing here in the Lower Mainland and across the country, as you can imagine. And as you say, it came on the heels of the Boston Marathon bombings. The thwarted plot to blow up a Via Rail train. Police say they've been watching the men for about a year after getting a tip from the Muslim community that something was wrong. All of these things were in the air and the language that police used. by these two people to plant pressure cooker bombs on the grounds of the legislature in Victoria that would have gone off on Canada Day during festivities when, you know, if you've ever been down there, it's just absolutely crowded with people. You know, the intent was clearly would have been to murder and maim, you know, an untold number of people. And the language they used was words like, you know, that they were sort of

self-radicalized terrorists, that they had sort of an al-Qaeda type cell. So that was very much in the air. Our investigation demonstrated that this was a domestic threat without international linkages. I mean, it was giant news. I remember the premier at the time, Christy Clark, commenting on it. Again, an incredible relief that these two individuals appear to have been working alone. You know, and it appeared because it was a time when there was this sense that anything might happen. And it appeared that as they, you know, held this press conference, that police had thwarted something just like that. you know, held this press conference that police had thwarted something just like that.

These arrests are another example of the effectiveness of our integrated national security enforcement team who worked tenaciously to prevent this plan from being carried out. What did we find out about the two suspects who were arrested in this case? You know, it clearly soon emerged that they were basically addicts. John Nuttall had come to the attention of police beforehand for a variety of kind of drug-related crimes, but nothing for a long time. It seems an unlikely place to launch an al-Qaeda-inspired terror plot, a basement suite in this suburban home. launch an al-Qaeda-inspired terror plot, a basement suite in this suburban home. There are signs of faith, a mirror and a picture saying, there is no God but God and Muhammad is his prophet. And everywhere, prescription bottles for methadone. And what do we know about what brought them to the attention of the police in the first place? Well, so what happened was that back in 2012,

actually, a member of the public had come forward with concerns because she had overheard John Nuttall making these kind of really troubling statements about wanting to commit some type of violent jihad. looked into it, it turned out that people at a variety of mosques around the lower mainland had turned him away from their prayer rooms and from their facilities because he had been making these kind of statements, inquiring about the possibility of committing some type of a violent extremist act. And so that obviously raised flags. The arrest didn't surprise this neighbor who says she overheard Nuttall saying his family was willing to go into the afterlife. Comments so disturbing, she called 911. And he was just wandering up and down here, going back and forth, talking about jihad. At the same time, CSIS had a tip that they put forward from, again, from a member of the public,

that he had been buying something like potassium nitrate at a local pharmacy. So you had all these red flags. Which is something that you can use to make bombs, right? Yeah, exactly. Exactly. I know that the police eventually assigned an undercover officer in this case. What do we know now about what this officer did or didn't do? Well, so it's what you call this sort of classic Mr. Big scenario is the kind of model that it took. And that's this kind of thing where you have this random meeting with somebody, but they turn out to be the first kind of first part of a scheme to kind of basically bring suspects into the confidence of what they think is an organization. And in this case, I think John Nuttall was out at a gas station and

bumps into this guy. The undercover officer was chosen because he was Muslim. He kind of befriends Nuttall. And what we see happen over time, according to the court records, is that they kind of go down this path where they start talking about, you know, Nuttall's interests. Nuttall very quickly starts talking about, you know, his kind of admiration for Osama bin Laden and for al-Qaeda and his desire to commit some type of a violent act. The officer is asking him about these things. And as kind of time goes on, what the court records show is that Nuttall and Carote became very attached to this officer, emotionally attached. And what the defense ultimately sort of accused the officers of doing is of making them dependent on this officer and accusing him also

of offering kind of some type of spiritual advice, which is a massive red line that you have to not cross because you can't be seen to be giving somebody spiritual advice that ultimately says, you can do this because, you know, God says it's okay. Can you give me some examples of what this officer was doing? Well, so, you know, they would have these conversations about Nuttall's plans. And, you know, looking at them on paper, it would seem completely ridiculous. You know, things like firing rockets at, you know, at the parliament buildings to free Palestine. You know, he talked about swimming out to a nuclear submarine to take it hostage and, you know, hold the world hostage.

And so what the officer would do is say, you know what, we need to be more realistic. You can't, you know, let's think about some of these other plans you have. And in the course of that emerged this kind of plan to set these pressure cooker bombs up at the legislature. I get my wife to go buy it. times what it felt like to kill somebody, and the officer, according to the court documents, said, you know, not good. You had these suggestions, and you ultimately saw from their private conversations, suggestions and you ultimately saw from their private conversations, which were all taped, that Nuttall and Karody were fearful of this officer. And that was part of the contention,

is that you don't want to end up in a situation where people are doing something because they are afraid that you'll kill them or hurt them if you don't. Was it just this one officer involved in this investigation or were there others? No, there was a team. There were a number of officers in the undercover operation. And then there was sort of investigations with the RCMP's national team looking at this and sort of running the whole thing. team looking at this and sort of running the whole thing. And what's interesting from the whole kind of run of the process here is you could see the conversations they were having about fears of entrapment. And in fact, a couple of times, the undercover team expressed kind of worries about the thought that this couple were incapable of carrying out something without the help of police. And, you know, they also obviously they end up getting legal advice from within the justice system to try to keep them on the right side of that line.

So you mentioned before entrapment, which is really what the heart of this case is about. Can we just sidebar for a second and talk about what entrapment is? Yeah, I find this really interesting because, I mean, I've used the word before. And before looking at this case, you know, you don't really think about what it means. And it actually goes to the heart of the legal system and the faith that we have to have in the integrity of police. The line the courts have looked at and that the judges at both the Supreme Court level and the appeal court level had to look at is the difference between the police sort of providing the opportunity for somebody, you know, who's criminally minded to commit a crime

and actually manufacturing a crime for them to commit. These two parallel stories that we just heard from you, it's sort of, and correct me if I'm wrong, what played out in the trial of these two in 2015. And so how did the narratives differ between the prosecution and the defense? So, yeah, you're right. It's two very different stories. prosecution, the defense. So, yeah, you're right. It's two very different stories. Essentially, the Crown said these two people were aspiring jihadists who wanted to commit

a violent act. They were in the market to do it. Police investigated them and they didn't place, you know, the idea in their heads to do doing, you know, everything but essentially planting these pressure cookers on the grounds of the legislature themselves in order to have them commit this crime. So they were completely trapped. This never would have happened without police. The outcome of that case is that a jury ultimately agreed with the prosecution, right? Yeah, on the facts of the case. And you can see it because they planted the devices there. They put these pressure cookers there. They weren't going to blow up. The RCMP had made sure of that. But they did put them

there. Yeah, they did put them there. And nobody put them there for them. Nobody at the end of the day put them there for them. No. They were found guilty. But then in 2016, this case, it took a real turn. So can you tell me about what happened there? BC Supreme Court in this case, heard arguments around entrapment. And so she found that there had been entrapment on a couple of different grounds, one of which was that they lacked reasonable suspicion, the police lacked reasonable suspicion to ultimately mount this undercover investigation, and that they induced them to commit this crime. And then also that that amounted in itself to an abusive process. John Nuttall and Amanda Cordy leave the B.C. Supreme Court in Vancouver today, free for the first time in three years.

No guys, no comment, okay? What's first on your list, John? Get in a cab and drive away from here. Okay, Amanda? I'm going to go wherever he goes. This week, the B.C. Court of Appeal decided to uphold the ruling. And can you tell me what this means for the RCMP moving forward? Well, they're certainly going to have to look going forward at how they approach this type of investigation.

how they approach this type of investigation. And, you know, as I was saying, I mean, you cannot emphasize enough what a big deal this was when it happened. A lot of resources went into it. It was heralded as a giant thing. So it kind of raises the question for the RCMP is how you investigate these cases. What do you do in order to prevent this kind of threat? You know, it's interesting. I was looking at the appeal court judgment and what they say, in fact, is that, you know,

they were expressing these kind of views and they say, you know, this is a quote, one wonders what would have happened if the police had not intervened and Nuttall had actually met someone else with similar extremist views. That doesn't give them license to do what they did, obviously, as the appeal court found. But it's kind of the question here for RCMP is, you know, you're kind of looking at how do you prevent people from doing something. When really you have no crystal ball for how people will behave in the future. for how people will behave in the future. Exactly.

I mean, you know, it's one of the fundamentally fascinating things about this case. And I guess it probably has implications to other types of possible crimes is you can't punish people for what might be in their heads. But in this era, that is something that causes security agencies

massive fear. And I think that's one of the kind of issues that is looked at throughout this case because as the courts say, that's well and good, but you cannot manufacture crimes for people to commit. And then arrest them for those crimes that you supposedly manufactured. Yeah.

I'm also interested, I know you've been covering this case from the very beginning. And what do we know about what they're doing now and what they think about the journey this case has taken through the courts? doing now and what they think about the journey this case has taken through the courts? Yeah, you know, it's so interesting, because again, I kind of was thinking back to seeing John Nuttall at the time. And there's so many different things that this brings up, which is the way that we react when these dramatic things happen. And I can recall seeing him sitting in court, right? And he was holding a Quran. She was in court as well. You know, it's these two people who are at the center of this, arguably the biggest story in the country at the time, which turned out to be so much more complex. They've been living on very kind of severe bail conditions. They still face the possibility,

I should say, that they might be having to live under a peace bond because the Crown had initiated a process and they've got a hearing coming up in January with regards to that to put a peace bond. So they could continue to live under restrictions. And you mentioned it is possible that this case gets appealed to the Supreme Court. Yeah, yeah, definitely. I mean, they've said that it's been very difficult, and they anticipate it will be difficult to kind of move on and through this. I mean, remember, they are recovering heroin addicts. You know, this was one of the other elements in this is that they were kind of on methadone during a lot of this whole process. So you also have to wonder, well, what are their beliefs?

And this is the appeal court judge says, I mean, they may be dangerous, but, you know, that didn't get the police to be the right to do what they did. But, you know, these are people who at one time filmed a video explaining why they were leaving pressure cookers full of nails and explosives on the grounds of the B.C. legislature to kill unknown people. This is a war they've declared on Islam. declared on Islam. So we're going to fight back with everything we've got, even if it means losing our lives and our loved ones. This is what we are doing. Yeah, I don't know. I mean, how do you, how do you even begin to square all that in? Lots of complexities in this case. And thank you so much for taking us through them and leaving us with lots to think about. Jason, thank you.

Oh, thank you. That's all for today. FrontBurner comes to you from CBC News and CBC Podcasts. The show is produced by Chris Berube, Elaine Chao, and Shannon Higgins, with help from Alina Ghosh and Robert Parker. Derek Vanderwyk does our sound design. Our music is by Joseph Chabison of Boombox Sound.

The executive producer of Frontburner is Nick McCabe-Locos. And I'm your host, Jamie Poisson. Thanks for listening. For more CBC Podcasts, go to cbc.ca slash podcasts. It's 2011 and the Arab Spring is raging. A lesbian activist in Syria starts a blog. She names it Gay Girl in Damascus. Am I crazy? Maybe.

As her profile grows, so does the danger. The object of the email was, please read this while sitting down. It's like a genie came out of the bottle and you can't put it back. Gay Girl Gone. Available now.