Tuesday, June 9, 2009

What's in a benefit?

It was the Crown's turn today to give its take on the charges that O'Brien faces. Like yesterday, previous case law was evoked and Hutchison went through various legal technicalities and interpretations that apply to both 121 and 125, though his major focus was on 121.

He had two main arguments:

1) On the issue of benefit... he said it would be ridiculous for the definition of a "benefit" to be limited to financial gain. He drew on a previous case and argued that it opens the door to all sorts of interpretations that go beyond economics. He said O'Brien sought a "direct, explicit, and concrete benefit" in Kilrea's withdrawal. He said it doesn't have to be literally tangible (like a stack of cash), rather it has to be valuable to the influencer. He argued that the influencer sets the price in terms that are valuable to him/her. So, in this case, having Kilrea out of the race was what was valuable to O'Brien, and he offered something to Kilrea so that he could gain the benefit.

2) On the issue of influence... he argued O'Brien sought out Kilrea and used his influence with senior Tory officials to get him an appointment (he reviewed a few things from Kilrea's testimony including the "what if I could make that happen" quote from O'Brien). He argued that even if O'Brien had no influence it was irrelevant to the harm that Parliament was trying to address with the law. Essentially, he argued that even impossible attempts are criminal, ie. the fact that an attempt is physically impossible doesn't make it any less of an attempt.

And just in case you were worried that Hutchison lost some of his dry humour and sarcasm while in the spotlight...

* Justice Cunningham interrupted several times to clarify and pose hypothetical questions. When he suggested that a person MUST have real authority otherwise crazy things could happen, Hutchison argued if three frat boys sat around drinking and promising each other great government jobs, the law wouldn't capture it because it wasn't serious. When the Judge suggests perhaps it was serious, Hutchison quips, "you went to a better frat than I."

* At one point Hutchison started a sentence with "Maybe I'm just a naive kid from Scarborough but..."

* In a different argument, Hutchison conjured up an example with "If Mr. Paciocco were to buy me a coffee...(pauses)... well I guess that's unlikely...."

Paciocco ended the day with a few arguments in response to Hutchison and then declares: "Stop the charges... there's been no crime here."

The Judge will return with a decision at 9:30 on June 26. If he rules for the directed verdict, the charges will be dropped. If he rules against it, the Defence will have the opportunity to call witnesses and continue with its case. It may also choose not to call witnesses and move directly to closing arguments.