After the equivalent of two full days of deliberations, the jury in the Cameron Ortis secrets case returned to the Ottawa courthouse on November 22 to deliver its verdict. It was just after 4:30 p.m., Eastern time, on a dreary, near-winter day.
The verdict was that Ortis was found guilty on all six charges—four counts of breaching the Security of Information Act, one of unauthorised use of computer systems, and one of breach of trust. Each of the four counts under the Security of Information Act carries a maximum sentence of 14 years. The illicit computer usage charge under the Criminal Code can add another 10 years maximum; breach of trust carries a 5 year maximum penalty.
As if to illustrate the seriousness of the trial outcome, Justice Robert Maranger asked each individual juror to stand and affirm agreement with the verdict. Each did, sometimes in muffled tones.
Altogether Ortis faces lengthy jail time, something Crown prosecutors said they would seek, including some consecutive time to be served on the charges. A ballpark guess would be c. 20 years. This was the jail time handed down in the Jeffrey Delilse case in 2012 (though Delilse received early parole).
Ortis also learned that his bail is revoked and that he is to be returned to the Ottawa-Carleton detention centre until his sentencing hearing, which is scheduled for January 11-12, 2024. This got the backs of his defence counsel up, but to no avail. Defence counsel also argued that there was no need for any additional jail time beyond that which Ortis had already served since his arrest in September 2019. That argument found no traction, but no doubt will be advanced at the sentencing hearing.
After Ortis was remanded in custody, the scene shifted to a media scrum outside the Ottawa courthouse on Elgin. Media were given a 30 minute heads up about the jury having reached a verdict so had to descend on the courthouse in a hurry.
Crown prosecutors affirmed that the verdict was the right one. They argued that the case had demonstrated that the Canadian judicial system could successfully prosecute secrets offences, despite the challenges of dealing with sensitive information, and do so in accordance with fair trial principles. The Ortis trial, in their view, passed muster as the first judicial test of the 2001 Security of Information Act. Our allies could have confidence is us.
Defence Counsel took on a very different, even heated, tone. They expressed shock and described the outcome as an unprecedented failure of the jury system. They continued to insist that Ortis had had to defend himself with “one hand tied behind his back,” because of the secrets involved in the case. When asked by a journalist in the scrum why Ortis had not said more about the information provided to him, and him alone, allegedly by a Five Eyes counterpart, that led to his decision to leak secret intelligence to organised crime figures, counsel merely said that would have been its own offense that he would have faced punishment for.
Defence Counsel continued to press their argument that no motive for Ortis’ actions had ever been identified and expressed confidence that the breach of trust charge would be thrown out on appeal. They promised an appeal would be forthcoming. No surprise there. With the kind of expert and determined defence that Ortis was able to count on, no trial is over until it is over, and the rear-guard battle in the court of public opinion continues.
Readers, please note: On the broader lessons to be learned from this case, I have submitted an Op Ed to the Globe and Mail and will share that with readers once it is published.
Prof Wark’s step-by-step analysis of this important case has been much appreciated by those of us with an interest in security intelligence.
As someone who worked in this line of work (albeit in another 'five eyes' country, I cannot imagine anyone in such a position taking orders from an ally on who to pass classified information to without going to his/her chain of command and clearing it. You would be just far too exposed to just what happened here. And who knows what games your allied counterparts are playing? Do they really give a damn if you turn out to be the fall guy? It just beggars belief.