Some details of Meng Wanzhou’s arrest were exposed and law enforcement officials admitted that the procedure was wrong

　　China News Service, Toronto, October 31, 2008. A round of hearing on Meng Wanzhou’s extradition case about the abuse of procedures by Canadian law enforcement agencies in the process of arrest ended on October 30, local time in the High Court of British Columbia, Canada. Witnesses from Canadian law enforcement agencies admitted that there were mistakes in the process of arresting Meng Wanzhou when they appeared in court for cross-examination.

　　During this five-day hearing, three witnesses from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Border Services Agency appeared in court successively and were cross-examined by both the prosecution and the defense. This is also the first time to let the outside world know about the specific process of Canadian law enforcement agencies arresting Meng Wanzhou, vice chairman and chief financial officer of Huawei, at Vancouver International Airport on December 1, 2018.

　　Officer of the Royal Mounted Police admitted that the procedure was "wrong"

　　The first half of the court was Winston Yep, a police officer of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. He admitted that he knew this was a "high-profile" case before he acted.

　　Ye gave an affidavit to the judge before the action, describing that Meng Wanzhou has "no connection" with Canada. He signed his name without verifying the background information, and later found that the content was inconsistent with the facts, but he did not make corrections or any remedial measures. He admitted that it was his "mistake".

　　In this case, the content of the affidavit is the only source of information that the judge can rely on when deciding whether to issue a provisional arrest warrant.

　　During the operation, law enforcement officers failed to "immediately arrest" Meng Wanzhou on the plane according to the arrest warrant. Ye explained that this was due to "security concerns" and respect for the "jurisdiction" of the Border Service at the airport, but he did not mention security or jurisdiction issues in any notes or documents.

　　Ye said that she was worried that Meng had anti-reconnaissance ability and that she carried a knife with her. However, when Meng Wanzhou got off the plane, the law enforcement officers did not search whether she was armed, but confiscated and searched her electronic equipment.

　　Ye also failed to comply with the prosecution’s prior request to write an event schedule after the action. For many details such as changing the action plan, Ye responded that he had "forgotten".

　　Meng Wanzhou’s defense lawyer said in court that Ye’s answers to some questions were not honest.

　　Border officials admitted giving the password to the police by mistake.

　　In the second half of the hearing, kirkland, an official of the Canada Border Service Agency, was the main person who appeared in court for questioning. He said that before the action, he learned that Meng Wanzhou was listed as a "national security" alert figure by the Canadian Border Service. However, after interrogating Meng, he thought that she was not involved in national security issues.

　　Kirkland said that he had collected Meng Wanzhou’s mobile phone and put it in a radiation-proof bag provided by the FBI. He denied that the Border Service was collecting mobile phones for the FBI, but he was not sure whether the RCMP would hand over the items to the US.

　　He admitted that he "inadvertently" handed the note with Meng Wanzhou’s mobile phone password and his mobile phone to the RCMP, which basically violated the privacy law. He said that he felt heartache and headache.

　　Kirkland also admitted that she was really worried that the delay in executing the arrest warrant due to the interrogation of Meng would affect her rights.

　　The defense lawyer of Bangladesh believes that the border service agency’s practice is a trick to use the privilege to interrogate Bangladesh without a lawyer present and without telling the real reason for the confiscation of the mobile phone.

　　The witness who briefly appeared in court in the last half day of this round of hearing was Bryce McRae, an official in charge of the Canada Border Service Agency. He confirmed that the day before Meng Wanzhou flew to Vancouver, the US Federal Bureau of Investigation called and "unusually" asked the Canadian Border Service to provide the telephone number of the supervisor on duty the next day. However, the next day, the FBI did not report electricity.

　　McRae said that he "can’t remember" some specific questions about the pre-action meeting and the process of intercepting and interrogating Meng Wanzhou.

　　Meng Wanzhou’s team of lawyers has always believed that there was procedural abuse in this case, so the extradition procedure should be suspended and three branches should be set up to appeal. One is to prove the political nature of the case with the statements of senior politicians in the United States; The second is to demonstrate that there is procedural abuse in the process of detention of Meng by Canadian law enforcement agencies at the airport; The third is to point out that the case records and other documents provided by the United States to Canadian officials are misleading, and there are major omissions and misstatements. This round of hearing belongs to the second branch.

　　In this round of hearing, the prosecution lawyer tried to prove that the arrests were in line with the process requirements, and the mistakes did not hinder the effectiveness of extradition.

　　Because the progress of questioning witnesses is slower than expected, the court will investigate the follow-up schedule, and will hold more sessions in November and December to continue cross-examination of witnesses and conduct hearings on other branches. The next hearing will begin in mid-November.