Pubdate: Sat, 07 Jul 2012
Source: Montreal Gazette (CN QU)
Copyright: 2012 Canwest Publishing Inc.
Contact: http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/letters.html
Website: http://www.montrealgazette.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/274
Author: Peggy Curran
Page: 3

GUILT-BY-ASSOCIATION GETS VITAL NOD

That states membership in a gang is not necessary to prove criminal
links is good news for police

Should you ever happen to get caught delivering cocaine for the mob,
here's a tip. Playing dumb is not a strong defence.

If the people you are dealing with walk like the Mafia and sound like
the Hells Angels, the Supreme Court of Canada said Friday you
shouldn't be surprised to find you've been cited under stiff
provisions that outlaw association with a criminal organization to
commit a crime - even if you aren't a card-carrying member of the tribe.

That's good news for police forces across the country, which in recent
years have relied heavily on large-scale raids, undercover moles,
wiretapping and elite squads to crack the whip on gangsterism.

Perhaps it's not so reassuring for defence attorneys wary of the
fallout from a more liberal interpretation of provisions that make it
illegal to belong to a criminal organization and to consort with
fellow members to commit offences.

Indeed, the ruling appears to open the way for law enforcement
agencies to close in on street gangs, cybercrime and other types of
criminal activity, which may depend heavily on structure, leadership
and planning.

In a unanimous, 7-0 ruling, the country's highest court said Section
467.13 of the Criminal Code, a controversial guilt-by-association
clause, which has been challenged as vague and unconstitutional, was
clearly designed to tackle the very specific problems posed by
motorcycle gangs, drug cartels and crime families.

"Organized criminal entities thrive and expand their reach by
developing specializations and dividing labour accordingly; fostering
trust and loyalty within the organization; sharing customers,
financial resources and insider knowledge; and in some circumstances,
developing a reputation for violence," wrote Justice Morris Fish.

"A group that operates with even a minimal degree of organization over
a period of time is bound to capitalize on these advantages and
acquire a level of sophistication and expertise that poses an enhanced
threat to the surrounding community."

Return for a moment to the spring of 2006, when a Laval man named
Carmelo Venneri was one of dozens of people picked up during Operation
Piranha, a nine-month investigation during which police intercepted
137,750 telephone conversations.

In a series of raids conducted by the Surete du Quebec, RCMP and
municipal police forces in Montreal, Laval and the Laurentians, police
seized 52 kilos of hashish, 49 kilos of cocaine, 725 marijuana plants,
136,000 Viagra pills, contraband cigarettes, along with a bunch of
fancy cars and $35,000 in cash. Police pointed to a network linked to
the Hells Angels and the Mafia, focusing on a major drug operation
headed by Louis-Alain Dauphin.

Dauphin pleaded guilty and was sentenced to nine months in jail.
Another victim of Operation Piranha was Louis Pasquin, a Montreal
defence lawyer whose past clients included members of the Hells
Angels. In 2009, Pasquin was sentenced to 54 months in prison for
using his position as a lawyer to mediate between Dauphin, who has
ties with the Hells, and Michael Russell, a pilot who flew drugs in
British Columbia who just happened to be Pasquin's brother-in-law.
Pasquin became the first lawyer convicted on gangsterism charges.

Venneri was originally convicted on eight counts related to his role
in supplying the drug kingpin, a man the court identifies simply as
D.

He eventually won acquittal on two charges of involvement in organized
crime and one of possession of cocaine for trafficking. His lawyer
argued that Venneri was not a member of the drug-trafficking ring
headed by Mr. D., but had been called upon as a backup after his
regular supplier got cold feet after the first raids.

In restoring one charge for involvement with organized crime, the
Supreme Court rejected Venneri's quibbling about what "in association
with" means.

"There is ample evidence that V knew that D was operating a large
drug-trafficking organization - or made himself wilfully blind to that
obvious fact," Fish wrote, citing evidence from Venneri's trial
showing the Laval man had bought cocaine from Dauphin in the past and
later became "an important pillar" of his supply network.

The Supreme Court decision in the Venneri case is intended to clear
some of the ambiguities arising from the murky question of what
constitutes a criminal organization. Yet Fish argues the justice
system needs to stay flexible when dealing with the underworld, rather
than having a "checklist that needs to be satisfied in every case."

The court cautioned against law enforcement officials using Section
467.13 too loosely. "Structure and continuity are still important
features that differentiate criminal organizations from other groups
of offenders that sometimes act in concert." Besides, Fish, wrote,
there are plenty of old-fashioned offences to handle criminal
conspiracies that don't qualify as gangland activity.

On the other hand, Fish says the law must not be interpreted so
rigidly that it only covers "the stereotypical model of organized
crime - that is, to the highly sophisticated, hierarchical and
monopolistic model. Some criminal entities that do not fit the
conventional paradigm of organized crime may nonetheless, on account
of their cohesiveness and endurance, pose the type of heightened
threat contemplated by the legislative scheme."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt