 |
| John L. Hill |
The 45-year-old Sikh nationalist was gunned down on June 18, 2023, in Surrey. B.C. India denied any involvement in the killing. In May 2024, police arrested and charged Kamal Preet Singh, Karan Preet Singh and Karan Brar with first-degree murder and conspiracy in the Najjar case. Evidence that the Nijjar assassination had the backing of the Modi government in India is yet to be proven. However, the swift and transparent actions of the RCMP today stand in stark contrast to the incompetence within the national police force and CSIS that followed the Air India bombings that took place on June 23, 1985, and took the lives of over 130 Canadians.
The only man convicted of the Air India bombings was Inderjit Singh Reyat. In a Law360 Canada column that appeared July 12, 2024, former Parole Board of Canada member Michael Crowley described the events leading up to a detention hearing for Reyat in March 2006, during which I defended Reyat before the board; Crowley chaired the three-member panel that decided Reyat’s fate.
In his article, Crowley suggests that I accused the board of bias. He assessed my assertion that “the fix was in” as an accusation that he and his two board colleagues were biased. I am genuinely sorry that he took that inference. I had and continue to have the utmost respect and admiration for Michael Crowley, and I comforted Reyat before the start of the hearing that we had a superb panel despite the context in which it was held.
The six-hour hearing was conducted in a circus-like atmosphere before an audience of about 120 observers in an upper-floor auditorium at Kingston’s Collins Bay Institution. The Canadian government had flown in family members of deceased victims who were lost in the disaster. Very few presented victim impact statements. National news networks were also in attendance. Obviously, the guests (mob?) wanted to see Reyat’s continued prison placement. That can be expected whenever victims attend parole hearings. The numbers seated were unprecedented. I worried that the large and angry spectators would have undue influence that could psychologically impact a board’s decision.
Worse yet, the RCMP took the unusual step of leaking to the press that Reyat would be charged with perjury even if the board voted in his favour. My letter to RCMP Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli accused the RCMP of breaching its protocol, which requires it to neither confirm nor deny aspects of an ongoing investigation before an arrest. Zaccardelli chose not to respond to my complaint. Could a board be swayed by knowing that even if it orders release, its decision will become meaningless?
A vital component of any detention hearing is that there is evidence to support that the offender will be a continuing risk to public safety. The Correctional Service of Canada paperwork made the allegation without evidence in support of its statement. On the other hand, we were able to present to the board a seven-page psychiatric report written by a well-respected professional, concluding that there was no likelihood Reyat would involve himself with the Sikh terrorist cause.
It was to the government’s advantage to enlist public rage against Reyat because the public had not yet learned of the incompetent handling of a terrorist threat. The public was never informed that government agencies had advance notice of the likelihood of an attack happening within days. Yet it never gave warning to air travellers. It allowed X-ray machines at Pearson International to remain broken and had lax security in the baggage and loading areas.
It was never disclosed that the RCMP and Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) were not acting in unison but preferred to keep information siloed to prevent the other agency from taking credit.
The Harper government that came to office in February 2006 had a “law and order” agenda. It would not be politically astute to see a man so reviled as the man accused of causing an air crash released from prison.
Until I read the Crowley column, I did not know that the board was instructed to report its decision immediately, not to upper management but directly to the Prime Minister’s Office. Remember that even though the board is an independent government agency, it relies on the government in power to appoint or replace board members.
No one was willing to consider that Reyat had been convicted and fined for his role in supplying the dynamite supposedly used in the aircraft bombing. To cover their ineptitude, the RCMP and CSIS needed a scapegoat. Reyat was returned to Canada from England to face manslaughter charges even though the evidence used to convict him had resulted in his earlier conviction. What’s a breach of Charter s. 11(h), the double jeopardy section, when the public needs its pound of flesh?
Decisive action taken after the Nijjar killing stands in sharp contrast to the ineptitude that our police and security agencies previously displayed.
John L. Hill practised and taught prison law until his retirement. He holds a J.D. from Queen’s and an LL.M. in constitutional law from Osgoode Hall. He is also the author of Pine Box Parole: Terry Fitzsimmons and the Quest to End Solitary Confinement (Durvile & UpRoute Books) and The Rest of the [True Crime] Story (AOS Publishing.). Contact him at johnlornehill@hotmail.com.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.