The Air India trial has finally commenced. Families of the victims, as always, seek a closure satisfied that the guilty have been sentenced according to the crime that was committed. Most Sikhs should agree with World Sikh Organization in requesting Canadian authorities to investigate the case thoroughly and make public all records of this investigation. Sikhs join all Canadians in seeking justice for the effected families in the hope that the Canadian Court will uphold the rights of a defendant to proper trial. While we seek a closure to this unfortunate tragedy we pray that more people are not victimized through wrong convictions.

On February 22, 2003 The Globe and Mail published the story of Gregory Parsons who spent 18 years in prison for a murder he had not committed. Commenting on his wrongful conviction Parsons said, “When I think of the millions and millions of dollars spent trying to convict me, why not find out what went wrong?”

Chief Justice Derek Green of the Newfoundland Supreme Court noted, “The circumstances of the case now before the court provide a dramatic example of how the justice system can fail to function properly when a jury is invited to engage on such improper reasoning – and the invitation goes uncorrected.” --Editor

The World Sikh Organization (WSO) last week joined the Canadian public in grieving for the victims of Air India flight 182 and expressed anxiety to see justice served, which it pointed out is in the interest of the Sikh community that has been victimized by the confusion and supposition inspired by an eighteen-year investigation into the tragedy.

WSO Canada President, Ajit Singh, said, "Is it because the RCMP and CSIS lack sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction of [Inderjit Singh] that a plea bargain has been accepted? Are there that many problems with the evidence obtained during this agonizingly slow process of intelligence gathering? Should our repeated requests for transparent and accountable public reckoning now be heeded? Most Sikhs believe that all aspects of the crime, the foreign and domestic police work, and the prima facie evidence, should be thoroughly examined by an independent body. Canadians need to have the opportunity to make up their own minds, by examining the many successes and failures associated with the investigation of these crimes."

While all faith groups universally condemn criminal acts of this magnitude, too often "expert" opinions on the Sikh faith and the Sikh community are sought outside the knowledgeable pool of representatives, feels the WSO.

Calgary, Alberta based WSO International President, Ram Raghbir Singh, reiterated the sentiments of the Sikh community, "It is our continued hope that the actual perpetrators of this crime will be brought to justice. We expect that this case may not be resolved, or jurisprudence served, if there is a failure to produce credible evidence for conviction. Therefore, we join the national population who anxiously await the presentation of the Crown's case in a Canadian courtroom; but it remains to be seen if the RCMP and CSIS can produce enough factual evidence to ensure the prosecution and conviction of those responsible."

"We hope that after the trial has concluded, many more Canadians will join the Sikh community in our long standing demand for a full public inquiry into the last eighteen years of strife that Canadians, from all faith backgrounds, have suffered," he said.

Testimony about a possible cover-up of crucial evidence in the Air-India case and about unexplained tampering with sealed information in a police file was heard shortly before a controversial plea-bargain deal was struck with Inderjit Singh Reyat.

The evidence, presented at the pretrial hearing last month, dealt with the purchase of a $129 Sanyo tuner that police believed contained the bomb that exploded on June 23, 1985, at Japan's Narita Airport, killing two baggage handlers.

One hour later, a bomb explosion aboard an Air-India flight killed 329 people. Police allege the two bombs were placed on the aircraft in Vancouver by Sikh militants seeking revenge against the government of India.

Karen Smith, the salesclerk who sold the tuner used in the Narita bomb, told police that Mr. Reyat was not the man who bought it, Edward Ross Drozda testified in B.C. Supreme Court on Jan. 29.

Mr. Drozda, a retired RCMP officer who worked on the Air-India case from 1985 to 1992, also said that the clerk's statement to police may not have been disclosed to Mr. Reyat's defence lawyers when he was tried and convicted in 1991 of helping to make the bomb that killed the baggage handlers.

The court prohibited the media from reporting Mr. Drozda's testimony until Tuesday. Mr. Justice Ian Bruce Josephson of the B.C. Supreme Court lifted the publication ban in response to an application from The Globe and Mail.

Mr. Reyat was convicted in 1991 in part because of police evidence that indicated he had bought the tuner at a Woolworth store on June 5, 1985. The B.C. Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision, accepting that "the evidence established that [Mr. Reyat] purchased ... one of only five tuners which could have housed the bomb."

Police linked the tuner to Mr. Reyat after tracing a fragment found at Narita Airport to a stock of tuners at a Woolworth store in Duncan, B.C., the town where Mr. Reyat lived. In August, 1985, police found an unsigned invoice at the store with "R-E-Y-A-T" written in the "deliver to" area.

Under intense police questioning in November, 1985, Mr. Reyat said he bought the tuner and told police where they could find a copy of the receipt.

However, Mr. Reyat has also contradicted himself, saying that a man staying at his home bought the tuner and took it with him when he left. Mr. Reyat has said he did not know the man's name.

On the final day of testimony before prosecutors negotiated a plea bargain with Mr. Reyat, Mr. Drozda testified that the salesclerk gave a statement to police on Aug. 19, 1985, about selling the tuner to two South Asian men.

About a month later, she informed police that she happened to see Mr. Reyat, and he was not the person who bought the tuner, Mr. Drozda said. Two days later, Ms. Smith described the purchaser while giving a statement to police while under hypnosis. Her description did not fit Mr. Reyat, the court was told.

However, at Mr. Reyat's trial, neither Mr. Reyat's defence lawyers nor the prosecutors asked Ms. Smith whether the purchaser was in the court room.

Although the pretrial hearing was stopped before Judge Josephson ruled on the significance of failing to disclose Ms. Smith's statements to police, the issue came up in court earlier on another matter.

Mr. Reyat's lawyers had previously argued that evidence collected by police in his home in November, 1985, subject to a search warrant, should be excluded because his constitutional rights had been violated, in part, by the failure to include Ms. Smith's statements in the application for the warrant.

Judge Josephson dismissed defence arguments about the importance of the failure to disclose the information, ruling on Dec. 13, 2002, that it "appears to have been through inadvertence."

In his plea-bargain deal, Mr. Reyat admitted that he acquired material that was used for the Air-India bomb, but said he did not make the bomb or know who placed it on the airplane. He did not identify the bomb-making items he bought.

During Mr. Drozda's testimony, the court also heard that an unidentified person had tampered with two boxes of sealed documents from the Narita trial.

The boxes, stored at Vancouver RCMP headquarters, contained copies of documents setting out information disclosed to Mr. Reyat's defence lawyers during the Narita trial.

Mr. Drozda testified that the boxes were sealed in 1992 after the trial. But on the day before he testified in the Air-India pretrial hearing, Mr. Drozda discovered the seal was broken. Some material had been removed and other material had been inserted, he said.

Mr. Reyat has spent 10 years in jail for his role in making the bomb that exploded in Japan. Earlier this month, he pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the Air-India deaths, admitting he acquired materials that were used in that bomb.

Edward L. Greenspan, Q.C. is senior partner, Greenspan, White.

Did Inderjit Singh Reyat win a victory by getting a five-year sentence for his role in the deaths of 329 Air-India passengers? Is the sentence outrageous? Has the prosecution completely lost its senses? Reyat has not even agreed to be a Crown witness.

Well, possibly Reyat has no evidence to offer. Maybe the remaining two accused are innocent. Under our Constitution, they are presumed to be innocent and they just may be. Possibly, Reyat said to himself, "The Crown, on the eve of trial, has offered a five-year sentence on top of the more than 15 years I've been in jail. This sentence may have me out of jail before their three-year trial is over. Even though I'm not guilty, there is a risk I could lose. I'll take the deal."

Obviously, by the Crown initiating the offer, it is suggesting that the charges against Reyat may not be supported by the facts or the evidence they have amassed. The Crown may even have lost confidence that it could prove Reyat guilty of anything.

Everyone knows instinctively that plea negotiations are in the public interest. Without them, costs would skyrocket and the court system would become bogged down. But Reyat proves that there is no legal procedure that is so little understood as the plea negotiating process, nor is there one surrounded by so much controversy.

It is interesting that in the agreed statement of facts, there are only five short paragraphs: three confirming what Reyat did not do and did not know; and two paragraphs admitting facts already proven at his first trial in 1991. The admitted facts demonstrate it cannot be proved: 1) that Reyat made an explosive device; 2) that he placed any explosive device on an airplane; 3) that he knew who did so; or 4) that at any time did he intend by his actions to cause the death to any person or believe that such consequences were likely to occur. The Crown conceded that unbeknownst to Reyat, the items he acquired were used by other persons to help make an explosive device that destroyed Air-India Flight 182.

In light of Christie Blatchford's column yesterday, the evidence given at the first trial that Reyat acquired the items may be in serious doubt.

Fortunately, in Canada, trials are about proving cases beyond a reasonable doubt on facts presented in a court of law, not rumour nor "belief" in someone's guilt. Guilt means legal guilt. Courts are concerned with legal, not moral guilt. The Crown must have conceded that Reyat had no idea that a plane would be blown up or that people would be killed. On the agreed facts, Reyat had no idea of the horrible terrorist act that would occur. The public may not like those facts, but those are the facts. And in criminal law, people are sentenced on the proven facts, not what the Crown wishes it could prove.

On the admitted facts, the total sentence is probably too high. In my view, the source of the public outcry is the Crown's failure to deal honestly with the public. Once the Crown has concluded that it can't prove Reyat is a terrorist, it can't insist that he is being punished as if he were one. The consequence of not being able to prove its case is that the Crown is not entitled to seek or justify a sentence as if it had.

The Crown should simply say, "We can't prove it. Five years is appropriate." But instead, it argued that "his actual sentence amounts to 25 years in prison. It's a matter of doing the appropriate math." The Crown wants to give its own loss a spin of victory and so it engages in a false numbers game.

On June 10, 1991, Mr. Justice Paris stated, in sentencing Reyat, "Taking into account the circumstances including time spent in custody, I sentence you to 10 years." That time was 80 months. But the Crown needs this 80 months to get to the 25 years, a number it thinks will appease the public. And so, they double dip, when Judge Paris already took it into account 12 years ago. The Crown is embarrassed by the fact that it can't prove its case and it is its embarrassment that is upsetting the public. Instead of engaging in "Enron accounting," the Crown should inform the public that this man is not getting away with murder, because he didn't commit murder. End of story.

Disclosure problems over critical evidence from a key witness may have been a driving force behind the controversial plea bargain concluded in British Columbia Supreme Court this week with Inderjit Singh Reyat.

That evidence, the National Post has learned, was first discovered by Reyat's current defence team only late last December and only began to be fully fleshed out last month.

On Monday, the 51-year-old Reyat pleaded guilty to manslaughter for his role in gathering the ingredients used to make the terrorist bomb that blasted Air-India Flight 182 out of the skies on June 23, 1985, and killed 329 people, most of them Canadians.

Anguished relatives of the victims immediately reacted with outrage and bewilderment to the sudden deal that saw Reyat given a five-year sentence.

But the answer to their collective question -- why, after almost two decades of painstaking and multi-million-dollar investigation, would prosecutors agree to a deal less than two months before jury selection in the trial proper was set to begin? -- appears to be connected to Reyat's conviction almost 12 years ago in another bombing.

That June day almost 18 years ago, two lethal bombs exploded within an hour of one another.

The second was the one that caused the Air-India jet to be blown apart over the North Atlantic Ocean off Ireland.

The first, contained in luggage that was destined for transfer to another Air-India flight, exploded in the New Tokyo International Airport in Narita, Japan. Two baggage handlers were killed.

Reyat was charged with manslaughter in the Narita bombing and on May 10, 1991, was convicted after a judge-alone trial before Mr. Justice Raymond Paris of the B.C. Supreme Court, and later sentenced to 10 years in prison.

Though there was a wealth of damning evidence against Reyat in that case -- cardboard and tape and other materials that matched fragments meticulously recovered from the blast and testimony from several witnesses who said Reyat had been trying to acquire dynamite that spring and was openly voicing his hatred for the Indian authorities over its army's bloody assault the year before on the Golden Temple in Amritsar, the holiest of Sikh sites -- arguably the most important single piece was a receipt for a Sanyo tuner bearing a rare stencil.

That receipt, discovered at his Duncan, B.C., home, bore Reyat's name and appeared to show that he had personally purchased the tuner -- which sophisticated tests determined had housed the Narita bomb -- less than three weeks before the blast.

Judge Paris referred at least seven times in his judgment to the supposed purchase by Reyat, and clearly accepted it as fact.

In one such reference, for instance, the judge wrote that "records from a Woolworth's store in Duncan disclosed that the accused had purchased such a tuner on June 5, 1985."

But, as Reyat's defence lawyers discovered recently, the Woolworth's clerk who had sold the tuner to two East Indian men had originally told police and later said in the presence of a prosecutor that Reyat was not one of them.

The clerk's description of the buyer never matched Reyat's appearance, either in 1985 or now. Nor did composite sketches of the two men drawn from her description fit Reyat.

Post sources independent of the courtroom -- where until about two weeks ago the Air-India trial judge, Mr. Justice Ian Bruce Josephson, was presiding over pre-trial motions involving Reyat's defence -- say this witness, Karen Smith, always maintained Reyat looked nothing like the two East Indian men in her store.

At some point, Mrs. Smith apparently went to Reyat's workplace, Auto Marine Electrical, where she confirmed that the bearded, turbaned man was not one of the pair who had bought the tuner.

A prosecutor, the Post has learned, was present with a police officer when Mrs. Smith was interviewed before the start of the 1991 trial, as is commonly done to prepare witnesses for court. In that interview, she reiterated her evidence that Reyat was not the man who bought the tuner. Geoff Gaul, a spokesman for the

Geoff Gaul, a spokesman for the Crown's office, said late yesterday he couldn't confirm the prosecutor knew this information had not been disclosed to the defence, but said that regardless, "the Crown is confident that any non-disclosure of this sort in the previous trial would not have impacted" the Air-India proceedings.

But the information was allegedly never disclosed to Reyat's lawyers, either those who represented him at trial in 1991 or at his subsequent unsuccessful appeal of his conviction at the B.C. Court of Appeal.

In fact, the Post has learned from sources outside the courtroom, the first inkling the defence team had of Mrs. Smith's statements came almost accidentally just before the court break at the Air-India pre-trial last December, when the Reyat team was arguing a motion before Judge Josephson.

During the holidays, the lawyers apparently did more digging, and by late last month, their allegations over improper prosecutorial disclosure had become the focus of another complex motion. It was, sources say, shortly after three police officers had testified that court broke again, and the first discussions between the prosecutors and Reyat's lawyers began.

These were in the beginning geared at coming to what's called an "agreed statement of fact" surrounding Mrs. Smith's evidence and the disclosure issues, the aim to obviate the necessity of perhaps having to call the involved prosecutor as a witness.

But the talks soon turned into full-blown plea resolutions and the deal that was formalized this week.

Mr. Gaul, however, said the timing was "absolutely coincidental" and the disclosure issue "played no role whatsoever" in the plea discussions or eventual deal.

The Post has obtained a transcript of Mrs. Smith's testimony at the first trial, where she was carefully questioned by prosecutor Richard Cairns.

Mr. Cairns is a member of the team now prosecuting Ajaib Singh Bagri, who, with Ripudaman Singh Malik, still faces an array of charges, including murder, in both the Narita bombing and the Air-India one. It is their trial that is slated to begin March 31.

Mrs. Smith's examination-in-chief was brief, and is contained on fewer than six pages.

Much of it revolved around the actual bill and the customer receipt and the meaning of various numbers such as the store and product codes.

Reading from the bill, Mr. Cairns then asked, "Then it says deliver to, and it's got, R-E-Y-A-T."

Mrs. Smith replied, "That would be the name the customer gave me."

"So that information was supplied by the customer?" Mr. Cairns asked.

"Yes," said Mrs. Smith.

A little later, Mr. Cairns asked her, 'Now, the individual that made this purchase, Mrs. Smith, can you describe him to the best of your ability?"

"It was an East Indian customer," she said.

"Is that the best you can do?" Mr. Cairns asked.

"That's about it," she said.

"And was he accompanied by anybody?" Mr. Cairns asked.

"He was accompanied by another East Indian," she said.

She was never asked what many lawyers consider the natural follow-up question -- that is, if she saw either of those East Indian men in the courtroom.

A little later still, after some questions about another tuner that was used by prosecutors as a sort of control for comparison purposes, Mr. Cairns told Judge Paris, "No further questions, my Lord."

One of Reyat's defence lawyers at the time, Mark Hilford, unaware of her earlier statements to police, conducted an even briefer cross-examination, and pressed Mrs. Smith only once for a better description of the two men. All she could say, she told him, was that one man was taller than the other, and that she had dealt mostly with the taller man.

The alleged disclosure problem with Reyat's first trial, Post sources say, served both to weaken the case against him in the Air-India trial and arguably even to bolster the defence contention that he was only ever a low-level player who was, by Mrs. Smith's evidence, perhaps even set up to the degree that he was identified by the two mysterious East Indian men -- they have never been found or identified -- who were actually in the Woolworth's store and who provided the clerk with Reyat's name and phone number.

The alleged disclosure problem with Reyat's first trial, Post sources say, served both to weaken the case against him in the Air-India trial and arguably even to bolster the defence contention that he was only ever a low-level player who was, by Mrs. Smith's evidence, perhaps even set up to the degree that he was identified by the two mysterious East Indian men -- they have never been found or identified -- who were actually in the Woolworth's store and who provided the clerk with Reyat's name and phone number.

Poignantly, after Reyat learned that he was being fingered as the purchaser of the tuner, he actually returned to the Woolworth's store in Duncan in an effort to confront the clerk and say it hadn't been him.

This was apparently held out at the 1991 trial as evidence of what in law is called "consciousness of guilt."

Judge Paris referred to it obliquely in his decision, saying Reyat "apparently attempted to persuade some Crown witnesses that their recollections and records of what he had done during the period leading up to the explosion were inaccurate." The judge noted that these actions were "consistent with those of a guilty person," but then added, presciently, "I hesitate to infer too much from them because in certain instances they could be consistent by themselves (though not in the context of this case) with the actions of an innocent person who was imprudently denying facts which he thought might wrongly inculpate him."

The controversial plea-bargain deal that enraged families of the victims of the Air-India disaster began with a phone call that caught defence counsel David Gibbons by surprise.

Without explanation, senior Crown prosecutor Robert Wright popped the question: "Would you be interested in plea-bargaining discussions?" Mr. Gibbons did not wait to be asked twice.

"I said, 'Of course,' " Mr. Gibbons recalled during his first interview about the deal which has upset so many people. "I said, 'I have a responsibility to listen if you bring it up, and I will take instructions from my client.' Then he made the first offer. It was not close to the final deal."

B.C. auto mechanic Inderjit Singh Reyat, Mr. Gibbons's client, was to go on trial on March 31 with two other men, Ajaib Singh Bagri and Ripudaman Singh Malik on a charge of murder in the deaths of 329 people. All passengers and crew on an Air-India flight from Canada had been killed in the midair bomb explosion on June 23, 1985.

Mr. Reyat had served 10 years for his role in making a bomb that killed two baggage handlers at Japan's Narita airport. Police said that the Narita bomb, which exploded 54 minutes before the Air-India bomb, was the work of the same B.C.-based group.

Mr. Reyat pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the Air-India deaths and was sentenced to five years in addition to the time he has served.

Mr. Reyat was a reluctant partner to the deal, sources said. He could not make up his mind.

After years in jail, Mr. Reyat was anxious to get out and rejoin his wife and four children. But throughout those long years in jail, he insisted he was innocent. He had refused generous incentives from the police to make a deal.

Mr. Wright and Mr. Gibbons met for lunch at Umberto's Il Giardino restaurant.

They met again for lunch, then in the evenings at Mr. Wright's office. The deal was approved on its fourth draft.

Mr. Wright declined an interview to talk about the negotiations. Mr. Gibbons said he did not ask Mr. Wright why he wanted to plea-bargain.

The defence lawyer, however, spoke of "a combination of several factors." He said he assumes the prosecution sought a deal because it "finally realized he [Mr. Reyat] was not guilty of murder; he did not intend to kill anyone."

During the trial, prosecutors would face "overwhelming" problems with procedural issues, which could have affected Mr. Reyat's right to a fair trial, Mr. Gibbons said. The problems could have disrupted the trial, possibly leading to a mistrial or a plea bargain at that time, he said.

Mr. Wright's phone call led to saving at least $5-million, and possibly more, according to one estimate.

Without Mr. Reyat in the prisoner's box, the Air-India trial for the other two accused may be held without a jury. Lawyers in the case have revised their estimate of the trial's length. The proceedings could stretch from 12 to 18 months, significantly less than previous estimates of two to three years, they said.

Mr. Gibbons, a lawyer since 1969, represented Mr. Reyat in November, 1985, when Mr. Reyat was arrested for the Air-India deaths but charged only with possession of dynamite and an unregistered handgun. Mr. Reyat pleaded guilty to those charges, paid a $2,000 fine and shortly afterward moved to England.

Mr. Gibbons assisted British counsel representing Mr. Reyat in the late 1980s, when Mr. Reyat was charged with the Narita deaths and during his fight against his extradition to Canada. Mr. Gibbons and his colleague Mark Hilford represented Mr. Reyat in the Narita bomb-explosion trial.

After his conviction, Mr. Reyat was upset he had not testified in his own defence at the Narita trial, and switched lawyers. But when his legal team fell apart last spring, he called Mr. Gibbons.

The Air-India case is unlike any he has seen, Mr. Gibbons said. Mr. Reyat's trial raised unusually complex legal issues on extradition, disclosure of information, double jeopardy and abuse of legal processes, he said.