Legal Shit

Recent Posts

Popular Posts

Desiree Capuano & James Pendleton
250 E. Placita Lago Del Mago
Sahuarita, AZ     85629
Tel: 520-288-8200
desiree.capuano@gmail.com
japendletonjr@gmail.com

R. v. Patrick Fox - Trial Transcripts

Highlighting Legend
Perjurious testimony which defense counsel (Tony Lagemaat) and Crown Counsel (Mark Myhre) knew of
Critical statements - e.g. inciminating admissions
Statements of interest - e.g. testimony which Lagemaat should have known to pursue further or cross examine on, but didn't
Click on any highlighted text to display the associated comments/annotations.
27178
Vancouver Registry
In the Supreme Court of British Columbia
(BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE HOLMES AND JURY)
Vancouver, B.C.
June 28, 2017
REGINA

v.

PATRICK HENRY FOX
PROCEEDINGS AT TRIAL
COPY
BAN ON PUBLICATION - INHERENT JURISDICTION
J.C. WordAssist Ltd. (Vancouver)
Suite 614 - 808 Nelson Street, Vancouver, B.C. V6Z 2H2
Phone 604-669-6550
27178
Vancouver Registry
In the Supreme Court of British Columbia
(BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE HOLMES AND JURY)
Vancouver, B.C.
June 28, 2017
REGINA

v.

PATRICK HENRY FOX
PROCEEDINGS AT TRIAL
COPY
BAN ON PUBLICATION - INHERENT JURISDICTION
  • Crown Counsel:M. Myhre
  • Appearing on his own behalf:P. Fox
  • Defence Counsel:A.J. Lagemaat
J.C. WordAssist Ltd. (Vancouver)
Suite 614 - 808 Nelson Street, Vancouver, B.C. V6Z 2H2
Phone 604-669-6550

INDEX

  • SUBMISSIONS RE ASSESSMENT FOR CROWN BY MR. MYHRE:4
  • SUBMISSIONS RE ASSESSMENT FOR ACCUSED BY MR. LAGEMAAT:5
  • REPLY RE ASSESSMENT FOR CROWN BY MR. MYHRE:6

EXHIBITS

  • EXHIBIT 14: Original verdict sheet dated June 28, 20173

RULINGS

  • Verdict re Count 11
  • Verdict re Count 21
Proceedings

BAN ON PUBLICATION - INHERENT JURISDICTION

Vancouver, B.C.
June 28, 2017

(JURY OUT)
THE SHERIFF: The jury is back, My Lady.
(PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED TO AWAIT RETURN OF
THE JURY AT 9:03:24 A.M.)
(PROCEEDINGS RECONVENED AT 2:31:01 P.M.)
THE COURT: I understand there's a verdict. Unless there's anything preliminary, I'll invite the jury in. Yes.
THE SHERIFF: The jury, My Lady.
(JURY IN)
THE COURT: Madam Registrar.
THE CLERK: Mr. Foreperson, could you please stand. Members of the jury, have you reached a verdict?
THE JURY FOREPERSON: Yes, we have.
THE CLERK: Mr. Foreperson, what is your verdict in relation to Count 1? Do you find Mr. Fox guilty or not guilty of criminal harassment of Desiree Capuano?
THE JURY FOREPERSON: We find the defendant guilty.
THE CLERK: Mr. Foreperson, what is your verdict in relation to Count 2? Do you find Mr. Fox guilty or not guilty of possessing a firearm in a place other than where authorized to do so?
THE JURY FOREPERSON: We find the defendant guilty.
THE CLERK: Members of the jury, hearken to your verdict as the court doth record it. Do you find the accused, Patrick Fox, guilty of criminal harassment of Desiree Capuano and guilty of possessing a firearm in a place other than where authorized to do so? This is your verdict, so say you all? THE JURORS: Yes.
THE CLERK: Please stand to confirm your verdict.
(JURY STANDS)
THE CLERK: The verdict is unanimous, My Lady.
THE COURT: Thank you. Please have a seat, members of the jury.
THE COURT: Mr. Foreperson and members of the jury, over the past two and a half weeks you have fulfilled a very important service to the community. As jurors, you have provided a direct and deciding voice in the administration of justice. You have performed one of the most important duties which a citizen can be called on to perform. You have performed your task diligently and attentively. Your task has been a challenging one. I hope that it has also brought some interest for you concerning the way our system of justice functions. Your presence in the courtroom helps to keep the law in touch with the community and, as I said, it may also have given you a better idea of the way that our system operates. I need to remind you about what you may and may not talk about after you leave the courthouse today. The public portion of the trial, and by that I mean anything that took place in the courtroom, can be discussed with anyone now that the trial is over. So anything that took place in this courtroom you can freely discuss, but your deliberations in the jury room can never be disclosed. It is a criminal offence to disclose your deliberations. They remain confidential forever. On behalf of the court and the people of Canada, I thank you for your time and the careful attention that you've given to this case and in performing your duty as jurors. You are now discharged. Thank you.
(JURY EXCUSED)
THE CLERK: [Indiscernible/not near microphone] as an exhibit?
THE COURT: We'll deal with that in a minute. Mr. Foreperson, Madam Registrar reminds me you have a verdict sheet. Thank you. And we'll mark that as the final exhibit. Thank you --
THE CLERK: It's Exhibit B --
THE COURT: -- very much.
THE CLERK: -- for ID, My Lady.
THE COURT: Thank you. Can I see that, please? Thank you. Thank you. That should be the next exhibit -- numbered exhibit.
THE CLERK: Numbered exhibit?
THE COURT: Yes.
THE CLERK: That's Exhibit 14, My Lady.
THE COURT: Thank you.
EXHIBIT 14: Original verdict sheet dated June 28, 2017
THE COURT: Next steps.
MR. MYHRE: My Lady, could I just have a word with my friend? My Lady, I wonder if we could stand down for a few minutes? I just told my friend how I would like to proceed from this point and I think he needs a moment to discuss that with Mr. Fox and --
THE COURT: Certainly.
MR. MYHRE: -- get his position.
THE COURT: We can stand down. How long would you like? Ten minutes? Fifteen?
MR. MYHRE: Ten --
THE COURT: Twenty?
MR. MYHRE: -- minutes maximum, My Lady.
THE COURT: All right. We'll stand down.
(PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED)
(PROCEEDINGS RECONVENED)
MR. MYHRE: So, My Lady, the Crown would ask that the court order a presentence report with a psychiatric component, which I understand takes approximately four weeks to complete, and that we set a sentencing date after that time.
THE COURT: Set it now or set it after that time?
MR. MYHRE: I'd be happy to set it today for a date that is --
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. MYHRE: -- four weeks or more out, but I understand Mr. Fox is opposed to there being such a report. Would you like to hear further from me on that point? I can explain why the ...
THE COURT: Mr. Lagemaat, are you representing Mr. Fox at this point or are -- do I ask for Mr. Fox's submission?
MR. LAGEMAAT: I'm not representing Mr. Fox for the purpose of sentencing, but I will speak to this matter right now. He opposes an order of a presentence report. He wishes to proceed to sentencing. Not immediately, but to set it much sooner than four weeks for sentencing.
THE COURT: All right. Then, I'll need to hear from you, Mr. Myhre.
SUBMISSIONS RE ASSESSMENT FOR CROWN BY MR. MYHRE:
MR. MYHRE: So, My Lady, the Crown's concerns are how to keep Ms. Capuano harassment-free going forward, to the extent possible, with court orders and treatment, if necessary. And, for that reason, my submission is that the court needs as much insight into what's going on with Mr. Fox as possible. There is, in addition to what the Crown has characterized as an obsession, an obsessive hatred for Ms. Capuano. As I have read over the website and the interactive of Mr. Fox, I am also concerned about -- it's hard to say on the website what is hyperbole and what is delusional. It seems to me that Mr. Fox genuinely believes some of the things that he writes. Like, for example, Desiree Capuano is a white supremacist because her ex-boyfriend had a swastika on a ceremonial dagger or Ms. Capuano is a drug addict because she has a medical marihuana card and her ex-boyfriend had a conviction for possession of crystal methamphetamine, so much so, as you saw in the statement of Constable Potts, that he said, "This woman won't come to trial. She's a drug addict." But she's clearly not a drug addict. She clearly raises two kids, holds down a job. So, when Mr. Fox appears to be that out of touch with reality, the Crown is concerned about the type of conditions that will help to give Ms. Capuano some peace moving forward. That's the basis for the Crown's request.
THE COURT: Uh --
MR. LAGEMAAT: If I could reply briefly, My Lady?
THE COURT: Well, I'd like to ask a question --
MR. LAGEMAAT: Okay.
THE COURT: -- or two first.
MR. LAGEMAAT: Yes.
THE COURT: How would a presentence report assist in arriving at a sentencing measure that would help keep Ms. Capuano free of further harassment?
MR. MYHRE: Well, if, for example, Mr. Fox -- Mr. Fox may or may not be suffering from some kind of mental health issue. I can't tell that because I'm not an expert in that field. But if there was such a thing, then maybe a condition like reporting to forensics would be appropriate. And if there isn't, then maybe the court needs to just clamp down on say his Internet usage to the maximum extent possible.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Mr. Lagemaat.
SUBMISSIONS RE ASSESSMENT FOR ACCUSED BY MR. LAGEMAAT:
MR. LAGEMAAT: Well, My Lady, there's no history of mental illness. There's no previous diagnosis. And, as far as the insults, those were back and forth. That's, in my submission, not a -- not indicative of mental health concerns.
THE COURT: It's not the insults. What Mr. Myhre referred to was obsessive hatred and what he described as hyperbole, becoming possibly delusional.
MR. LAGEMAAT: Well, I don't think we can diagnose that at this point as delusional. It was -- not to dwell on the evidence, but this was back and forth, where she was calling him mythical characters and they were engaging in this back and forth. It's my submission there's no -- we can't diagnose this at this point as delusional and, as I said, Mr. Fox opposes . . .
THE COURT: Is there a method of getting some sort of psychiatrist assessment without ordering a presentence report? That -- in my own recent experience, seem -- they seem to take longer than four weeks to prepare and they cover a range of issues and concerns.
MR. MYHRE: As far as I know, the court has the power to order one or both. They -- I've never seem them -- a psychiatric report without a PSR, but I know that they can just be ordered. I mean, they're separate. I have to fill out a separate form to send to forensics to make that happen, so I --
THE COURT: Well, what's the jurisdictional basis for ordering a psychiatric report without a presentence report?
MR. MYHRE: I confess, My Lady, I can't tell you that off the top of my head. I've never looked up the section. I'd have to go look at it.
THE COURT: Do you need time, Mr. Lagemaat? If you do, we can easily --
MR. LAGEMAAT: No --
THE COURT: -- stand down.
MR. LAGEMAAT: No, My Lady.
THE COURT: Is the concern, Mr. Lagemaat, the length of time that it would take to --
MR. LAGEMAAT: Yes, that is --
THE COURT: -- be prepared?
MR. LAGEMAAT: -- the concern.
THE COURT: Is that the only concern?
MR. LAGEMAAT: Yes, and it's -- it's my understanding, too, that they're taking much longer than four weeks.
THE CLERK: My Lady, I asked the --
MR. MYHRE: In custody?
MR. LAGEMAAT: Yes.
THE CLERK: -- supervisor downstairs. It's six to eight weeks for a PSR.
THE COURT: That's what I thought.
MR. MYHRE: Pardon me, My Lady. And that was in custody, Madam Registrar?
THE CLERK: Yes. It's usually about six weeks.
THE COURT: Well, I'd be interested in knowing -- well, Mr. Myhre, let me back up. Would a presentence report have any -- would it add anything in this particular case, leaving aside the psychiatric component?
REPLY RE ASSESSMENT FOR CROWN BY MR. MYHRE:
MR. MYHRE: Well, My Lady, as I've seen presentence reports, what they can sometimes do is give some insight into whether the offender has any insight, and that depends on the extent to which the offender is cooperative with a presentence report. In this particular case, we've already seen from the website that Mr. Fox remained unrepentant throughout. The website is still up, being hosted in Iceland, and so I'll be making the submission that his attitude hasn't changed since that blog that he wrote in May of 2016. So I don't see the value of the presentence report component. That's...
THE COURT: Well, two questions, then. Is there jurisdiction, authority in the Criminal Code, to order some sort of psychiatric report alone? And, if there is, is it something that need be done with the convicted person's consent or not? Or is it something, Mr. Lagemaat, that, if it can be done quickly, Mr. Fox would agree to?
MR. LAGEMAAT: If it could be done quickly, I believe he would agree to it. He would consent.
THE COURT: Then, I wonder whether we should simply adjourn until tomorrow or Friday and, Mr. Myhre, you could perhaps make inquiries and see what's possible, and it may be that a psychiatric assessment could be done on a speedy basis and done with Mr. Fox's consent. Does that seem like a sensible way to go?
THE ACCUSED: I have no objection to that.
MR. MYHRE: My Lady, could we have till tomorrow afternoon?
THE COURT: I think so. Assuming we have court time, which I imagine we do, are you thinking three o'clock?
MR. MYHRE: At two o'clock if --
THE COURT: All right.
MR. MYHRE: -- if you're available.
THE COURT: Madam Registrar, would you mind phoning down and seeing if we could reconvene at two o'clock tomorrow for -- to -- we'll call it to fix a date for sentencing, before me.
THE CLERK: That's fine, My Lady.
THE COURT: All right. So nobody's moved into our courtroom yet.
THE CLERK: And did we want Mr. Fox here in person or by video?
THE ACCUSED: I would rather be here in person.
THE CLERK: Person.
THE COURT: And, Mr. Lagemaat, will you be here?
MR. LAGEMAAT: Yes, I will.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Is there anything else we should deal with now? All right. Thank you.
(PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED TO JUNE 29, 2017, AT
2:00 P.M., TO FIX DATE FOR SENTENCING)
Transcriber: S. Goossens