Ali's Lawyers Seek to Bar Victim's Father From Post-Trial Hearings Amid Gun Probe

In Courtroom 20 of the Vancouver Law Courts, a high-security room built for the Air India terrorism trial, a hearing on Wednesday turned on a question few trials have to answer: whether the father of a murdered child should be allowed to listen to what comes after the verdict. Bulletproof glass separates the room from the public gallery.

The father cannot be named, because a publication ban protects the identity of his daughter, who was 13 when she was killed. Her body was found in a Burnaby park in July 2017. Last month Ibrahim Ali was convicted of first-degree murder in her death. Ali, who appeared by video on Wednesday, has not yet been sentenced. He faces a mandatory life term with no chance of parole for 25 years.

The dispute began on Dec. 8, the day of the verdict. Ali's lawyer Kevin McCullough said in an interview last month that Victoria Police told him two days later that the father had brought a loaded Glock into the courthouse with an "intent to kill." The father has not been charged, according to his lawyer, Brock Martland. Police seized items from him on Dec. 9, and court documents show he is due in court next month on the disposal of those items. A spokeswoman for the BC Prosecution Service said he also faced a "prohibition order," which under the Criminal Code can bar a person from possessing firearms, crossbows, restricted or prohibited weapons, ammunition and explosives. He is due to appear in Surrey Provincial Court.

Vancouver Police confirmed on Dec. 12 that a man had been arrested and that an investigation was under way into allegations that someone brought a weapon into the courthouse during the Ali trial. An email from the force to Ali's lawyers on Dec. 11 said the father was under a no-contact undertaking with them and "must not enter" the vicinity of the Supreme Court in Vancouver. It told the lawyers to call 911 immediately if he breached it. Martland said the undertaking restricts his client from the courthouse and from within a few blocks of it.

McCullough and co-counsel Ben Lynskey are refusing to attend the post-trial proceedings, citing safety concerns. They want the father excluded from the hearings in any form, and they oppose a Mandarin court interpreter translating for him. On Wednesday they sent a colleague, Tim Russell, to argue the application.

Russell said the question was whether the lawyers' fears were reasonable. "To have a target on your back and realize you were a coin toss away from having shots fired would instil the most reasonable fear in anyone," he told the court, adding that anyone in the courtroom on Dec. 8 was also a victim. He said the lawyers were not trying to undermine the open court principle, but to ensure Ali gets a fair process with counsel who can make submissions "without fear, without intimidation, without distraction." He argued that, for the purposes of this application, the father stands in the position of the accused, and that his status as a victim has no bearing on it.

Martland said his client was seeking only a narrow form of involvement. He is not asking for a ruling that lets him into the courtroom, but for an interpreter attending by phone to relay the proceedings, along with access to materials in the application. He noted that no charges have been proved or laid over the firearm allegation, and said that if the defence believes the no-contact undertaking is breached, it should call police, as the department's email advised. Crown lawyer Daniel Porte told the judge the Crown supported the father's request for standing.

Justice Lance Bernard ruled in the father's favour on standing on Wednesday. He has not yet ruled on the broader application to ban the father from listening in. The man's son did not immediately respond to a voice mail seeking comment. The ruling on exclusion, and the father's court date in Surrey next month, are what to watch next.