A judge will rule next Wednesday whether to allow two key pieces of evidence in the Randy Hanoski arson trial.
Hanoski, 54, is accused of setting fire to a trailer in Ainsworth which also consumed the historic Silver Ledge Hotel. He is standing trial in Nelson Provincial Court before a judge alone. (There are no jury trials in provincial court.)
Crown and defense lawyers argued Friday over the admissibility of statements Hanoski allegedly made to two police officers while being transported to Trail, and a letter he mailed the night before the fire.
The Crown says three comments attributed to Hanoski while in the back seat of a police cruiser were “spontaneous utterances” that did not result from questions or comments by the officers. The defence, however, suggests they were involuntary and are therefore inadmissible.
Cpl. Darryl Orr quoted Hanoski as saying “I’m really upset the porch is gone, but my emotions got the better of me,” and “I wanted to watch it burn. I felt very frustrated,” and “I got drunk. Then I got angry.”
Crown prosecutor Sunday Patola told Judge Ron Fabbro the court could be satisfied Hanoski’s statements were of his own free will, without any coercion from the officers.
However, Hanoski’s lawyer, Tyleen Underwood, responded that the Crown has not proven voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt. She noted Hanoski was travelling with two plainclothes police officers in an unmarked vehicle, and may not have been handcuffed.
The conversation was not recorded by any audio or video equipment, although one officer acknowledged the importance of recording a suspect’s statements, she said.
She also suggested the officers gave somewhat contradictory evidence: while Cpl. Devon Reid recalled a number of topics the three men discussed while driving back to Trail, Orr could not recall any and thought they didn’t talk much.
Underwood said some weight should be attached to Orr’s testimony that he “didn’t go in trying to get a statement [from Hanoski], but if he’s willing to give, I’m willing to take.”
Underwood said Orr’s explanation that he didn’t transcribe Hanoski’s comments in the vehicle because it would be awkward, suggested he was trying to encourage Hanoski to make statements, not discourage him.
Seized letter violated Charter rights, lawyer argues
The other piece of evidence the defence challenges is a letter Hanoski is believed to have mailed to his girlfriend the night before the fire, which police seized from the Ainsworth post office.
An RCMP officer testified this week that inside the envelope was a card, $540 in cash, and a four-page, double-sided, handwritten letter, whose contents were not revealed in court.
The defense says Hanoski had a reasonable expectation of privacy under the Charter of Rights of Freedoms, which was violated.
Underwood noted Hanoski was not using the mails for anything illegal, and police seized the envelope without a warrant. Kaslo RCMP Cst. Mark Macaulay testified he felt the matter was urgent, as Hanoski’s whereabouts were unknown at the time, and they were concerned the letter might contain a suicide note.
The post office employee was reluctant to hand it over, but Macaulay was insistent.
Underwood called it “a serious breach of one’s rights.”
The Crown replied that there is nothing in the Canada Post Act or criminal code that provides for obtaining a warrant in these circumstances, and police acted in good faith. Patola said Hanoski’s privacy rights were secondary to the protection of life, and the officer had “plenty” of grounds to seize the letter and would have been “derelict in duty” if he hadn’t.
“In his mind, it was a matter of life or death,” she said.
The judge said he would rule Wednesday on admitting the controversial evidence.
Based on his decision, the Crown may introduce additional material before final submissions are presented.
The defense, however, does not intend to call any evidence, and has not offered an alternate theory to the cause of the fire.