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.
In an earlier comment in this forum, I noted that the jury would not be obliged to give reasons for its verdict; so, its “thinking”, can only be gleaned, indirectly, or inferentially, by presuming that the jury members, in this case, have unanimously, preferred the interpretation of the evidence and governing statutes, that was urged upon them by the Crown, rather than any contrary views expressed in the submissions of the Defense.
Moreover that “unanimity” is not insignificant. Practically and legally.
But at a minimum: it appears that the jury didn’t accept that the “story” advanced by Mr. Ortis, was believable and exculpatory. And it may be as simple as the view expressed by Mr. Alcock: that Ortis’ explanation just doesn’t seem plausible in the legal and rules-based institutional context, in which he was working. It is a police organization, after all.
However, the jury doesn’t have to explain its thinking publicly or enunciate any reasons for its decisions. Nor can its members be asked to do so - by, say, the media. Jury deliberations are supposed to be secret.
On the other hand, if there is an appeal – as I gather there will be – it is likely to be, I suspect that, at the very least, it will be “two-pronged”:
(1) an attack on the adequacy of the Judge’s instructions to the jurors (i.e., his explanation of “the law” that the jury was obliged to apply and how they were to go about their task of assessing the facts);
and
(2) a separate assertion that the verdict itself is “unreasonable” – which is to say: that a properly instructed jury simply could not reach the decision that it did, on the basis of the evidence that it had before them.
The first attack is on the handiwork of the Judge.
The second attack is on the handiwork of the jury.
And it is on this second branch that we might yet see a seasoned judicial overview and assessment of the evidence.
Not just a feeling, that the story seems implausible, which was Mr. Alcock’s impression (and my own).
The proper legal test is “whether the verdict is one that a properly instructed jury acting judicially could reasonably have rendered”.
Moreover, when embarking on that exercise, the reviewing court must engage in a thorough re examination of the evidence and bring to bear the weight of its judicial experience to decide whether, on all the evidence, the verdict was a reasonable one. It is not sufficient for the reviewing court to simply take a different view of the evidence than the jury. Nor is it sufficient for the court of appeal to refer to a vague unease, or a lingering or lurking doubt based on its own review of the evidence.
While a “lurking doubt” may be a powerful trigger for a thorough appellate scrutiny of the evidence, it is not, without further articulation of the basis for such doubt, a proper basis upon which to interfere with the findings of the jury, which is supposed to be the “trier of fact”.
Rather, if the appeal court it is to overturn the verdict, it must articulate the logical and factual basis upon which it concludes that the jury verdict is inconsistent with the requirements of a “judicial appreciation” of the evidence that was put before the jury for consideration. There must be a manifest and demonstrably significant mistake – something that matters.
Which means that we will get an objective narrative and logically constructed articulation of the law and the facts (“the story) – or at least as much of it as the reviewing Court feels comfortable putting on the record. And I put it that way, a bit tentatively, because I don’t know how much of the evidence was heard, in camera, or how an appeal court would deal with that a-typical feature of a legal proceeding.
And, of course, any appeal decision is months away, if not longer, especially if there are further appeals, as is distinctly possible too.
The motive is still outstanding. I think it was money. If you watch the Fifth Estate episode on this case, they report he had a 90k debt in 2020. They also reported his friends had said that when he started with the RCMP, he had a basement apt, had to sell his car to pay debt, and rode the bus to work everyday. Once he got promoted, he was making six figures and moved to a nicer apt in the Byward Market. (It looked pretty brutalist and posh to me, #24) He also wore nicer clothes and went to restaurants a lot. Does six figures in Ottawa support this lifestyle if you're also paying down your student debt (which happened to be from his parents re-mortgaging their house)?
One of his professors said in the same eps that he didn't take risks or gamble. What is this, if not, an incredible risk and also gambling with everything in your life, plus trust from the RCMP, and the trust that the Five Eyes have in our country to not leak their information. It's also people's very lives at stake, that could be undercover in what he had leaked.
I don't know where the harassment or controlling behaviour comes from though, possibly a sense of entitlement from thinking he's the smartest guy in the room. Enron thought they were the smartest guys in the room too. A lot of the Enron guys are in jail now, the same place Cameron Ortis is going for a very long time.
I would like to know how he was convinced that this was a good idea and if he believed his own lies? I would even say they're flights of fantasy. Did he believe he was the only person to save Canada with this frankly, stomach churning idea? This whole event still makes me incredibly upset.
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.
In an earlier comment in this forum, I noted that the jury would not be obliged to give reasons for its verdict; so, its “thinking”, can only be gleaned, indirectly, or inferentially, by presuming that the jury members, in this case, have unanimously, preferred the interpretation of the evidence and governing statutes, that was urged upon them by the Crown, rather than any contrary views expressed in the submissions of the Defense.
Moreover that “unanimity” is not insignificant. Practically and legally.
But at a minimum: it appears that the jury didn’t accept that the “story” advanced by Mr. Ortis, was believable and exculpatory. And it may be as simple as the view expressed by Mr. Alcock: that Ortis’ explanation just doesn’t seem plausible in the legal and rules-based institutional context, in which he was working. It is a police organization, after all.
However, the jury doesn’t have to explain its thinking publicly or enunciate any reasons for its decisions. Nor can its members be asked to do so - by, say, the media. Jury deliberations are supposed to be secret.
On the other hand, if there is an appeal – as I gather there will be – it is likely to be, I suspect that, at the very least, it will be “two-pronged”:
(1) an attack on the adequacy of the Judge’s instructions to the jurors (i.e., his explanation of “the law” that the jury was obliged to apply and how they were to go about their task of assessing the facts);
and
(2) a separate assertion that the verdict itself is “unreasonable” – which is to say: that a properly instructed jury simply could not reach the decision that it did, on the basis of the evidence that it had before them.
The first attack is on the handiwork of the Judge.
The second attack is on the handiwork of the jury.
And it is on this second branch that we might yet see a seasoned judicial overview and assessment of the evidence.
Not just a feeling, that the story seems implausible, which was Mr. Alcock’s impression (and my own).
The proper legal test is “whether the verdict is one that a properly instructed jury acting judicially could reasonably have rendered”.
Moreover, when embarking on that exercise, the reviewing court must engage in a thorough re examination of the evidence and bring to bear the weight of its judicial experience to decide whether, on all the evidence, the verdict was a reasonable one. It is not sufficient for the reviewing court to simply take a different view of the evidence than the jury. Nor is it sufficient for the court of appeal to refer to a vague unease, or a lingering or lurking doubt based on its own review of the evidence.
While a “lurking doubt” may be a powerful trigger for a thorough appellate scrutiny of the evidence, it is not, without further articulation of the basis for such doubt, a proper basis upon which to interfere with the findings of the jury, which is supposed to be the “trier of fact”.
Rather, if the appeal court it is to overturn the verdict, it must articulate the logical and factual basis upon which it concludes that the jury verdict is inconsistent with the requirements of a “judicial appreciation” of the evidence that was put before the jury for consideration. There must be a manifest and demonstrably significant mistake – something that matters.
Which means that we will get an objective narrative and logically constructed articulation of the law and the facts (“the story) – or at least as much of it as the reviewing Court feels comfortable putting on the record. And I put it that way, a bit tentatively, because I don’t know how much of the evidence was heard, in camera, or how an appeal court would deal with that a-typical feature of a legal proceeding.
And, of course, any appeal decision is months away, if not longer, especially if there are further appeals, as is distinctly possible too.
The motive is still outstanding. I think it was money. If you watch the Fifth Estate episode on this case, they report he had a 90k debt in 2020. They also reported his friends had said that when he started with the RCMP, he had a basement apt, had to sell his car to pay debt, and rode the bus to work everyday. Once he got promoted, he was making six figures and moved to a nicer apt in the Byward Market. (It looked pretty brutalist and posh to me, #24) He also wore nicer clothes and went to restaurants a lot. Does six figures in Ottawa support this lifestyle if you're also paying down your student debt (which happened to be from his parents re-mortgaging their house)?
One of his professors said in the same eps that he didn't take risks or gamble. What is this, if not, an incredible risk and also gambling with everything in your life, plus trust from the RCMP, and the trust that the Five Eyes have in our country to not leak their information. It's also people's very lives at stake, that could be undercover in what he had leaked.
I don't know where the harassment or controlling behaviour comes from though, possibly a sense of entitlement from thinking he's the smartest guy in the room. Enron thought they were the smartest guys in the room too. A lot of the Enron guys are in jail now, the same place Cameron Ortis is going for a very long time.
I would like to know how he was convinced that this was a good idea and if he believed his own lies? I would even say they're flights of fantasy. Did he believe he was the only person to save Canada with this frankly, stomach churning idea? This whole event still makes me incredibly upset.