Let the appeal shenanigans begin
Let me see if I’ve got this straight: Black’s appeals lawyer, Andrew Frey, is quoted in the Post this morning suggesting that the strongest element of his client’s appeal (and hence the strongest reason for Amy St. Eve to grant him bail pending that appeal) is the vulnerability of the obstruction charge:
It is, Frey reasons, “utterly unreasonable to conclude that Mr. Black acted with obstructive intent, which is an indispensable element of the offence. I don’t want in any way to denigrate the strength of our arguments on the fraud counts, (but) it seems to me our prospects of success are especially strong on obstruction.”
Lawyers. God love ’em. A criminal trial plays out over the course of four months wherein the evidence of Black’s alleged obstruction—the thirteen boxes he was videotaped removing from Toronto Street—is literally wheeled in before the jury and argued about day after living day. Then, on appeal, a new lawyer announces that anyone (i.e. the judge and the jurors) who would conclude that Black intended to obstruct justice by removing those boxes is “utterly unreasonable.” Then that same judge is asked to agree with that premise in granting Conrad Black bail pending appeal.
If that’s not the very definition of chutzpah, I don’t know what is.
Black filing bid for bail: Source [Canada.com]
