Criminal or ethical?

After almost a week, proceedings picked up in courtroom 36.

The first item of business was the question of whether an expert would be allowed to give evidence on the political and social context to the charges O'Brien faces. Paciocco agreed that calling an expert would complicate things but insisted David Mitchell would be crucial in providing the Judge with all the information he would need to make a decision. The Judge didn't think so, saying he didn't see the point of calling an expert who would come in and give examples from books he has already read himself.

The rest of the day was dedicated to Paciocco's arguments for a directed verdict. Though he gave ample examples, the arguments came down to those that he introduced last week:

* Section 125(b): O'Brien had no influence to get Kilrea an appointment. Paciocco argued that in Reynold's testimony, he said the most he could do was pass on a resume of somebody to the appropriate minister, but that he had no influence in doing more than that. In this case, Reynolds said he never received Kilrea's resume and he never did anything to further an alleged appointment... thus no one with influence did anything to exert it.

* Section 121(1)(d)(ii): Any benefit or advantage must be financial/material/tangible/economic. Paciocco argued political advantage is not caught in this charge. "There has not been a single prosecution for political advantage", Paciocco said. "What is alleged is not criminal... this is not the stuff of crimes, it's the stuff of politics." This was a major focus of the argument; essentially a question of whether it is the place of the court to regulate this type of behaviour. "It's not about whether it's acceptable, it's about whether it's criminal", Paciocco said.

The Crown will present its arguments tomorrow and the Defence will have a chance to reply. After that it will be up to the Judge to decide if he grants the directed verdict.

This is the last week that has been scheduled. After Thursday, there will be a three week break with proceedings picking up the week of July 6 if need be. What happens next will largely depend on how much time the Judge will take to make a decision on this motion. If it is allowed, the case will be over and O'Brien will be acquitted. If it is not allowed, the Defence can still make a motion for a traditional directed verdict on the basis that the Crown has not met its burden of proof (that there's a lack of evidence).

We're back at it tomorrow morning.