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