As the two-year anniversary of what became Freedom Convoy approaches, two of the main organizers of the protests have returned to court, but remain in legal limbo as their criminal trials drag on.
Tamara Rich and Chris Barber are scheduled to return to court in Ottawa on Thursday to continue their trial, which has stretched well beyond the originally scheduled 16 days. The court granted only one day for the trial to continue.
Ricci and Barber were arrested on February 17, 2022, the day before police began clearing protesters from the streets — for mischief, obstructing police, and their roles in the protests. He was charged with encouraging others to commit mischief or intimidation.
The trial, which began on September 5, will determine whether and how the two men should be punished for their roles in weeks of protests that have disrupted the city and shocked residents. The purpose of this is to determine whether the person should be punished accordingly.
Legal disputes, technical delays, unprepared witnesses and questions over how police disclose evidence have all slowed the case.
No other trial dates have been confirmed since January 1, even though prosecutors have closed the case and the trial is closer to finishing than starting.
The question now is whether limited dates will be available to continue the trial.
Defendant is not expected to testify
Once the case does begin, Rich and Barber’s defense has not presented enough evidence for prosecutors to prove that the two acted in collusion or committed the crimes they are accused of. It is expected that this will continue to be the case.
Lawyers Lawrence Greenspon and Eric Granger, representing Mr. Rich, along with Mr. Barber’s attorneys Diane Magas and Marwa Younes, have about five days to begin their defense. I told the court that it was necessary.
It is unclear what evidence, if any, will be sought, and the two defendants do not currently plan to testify. The defense argued during the trial that Ricci and Barber cooperated with police and city officials and were peaceful during their time in Ottawa.
Barber, from Swift Current, South Carolina, was taken into custody and released the next day. Rich, a native of Medicine Hat, Alta., spent 49 days in prison over two periods. Her first stint was when she was first arrested, and she was later arrested again after a Canada-wide warrant was issued for violating her bail conditions.
Thursday’s hearing is expected to begin with arguments over the admissibility of court records of two court injunctions ordering protesters not to blow horns during motorcades.
Mr. Barber faces additional charges for failing to comply with that court order.
In a video taken from Mr Barber’s TikTok account days after the restraining order was granted and presented as evidence in court, Mr Barber can be seen “grabbing the horn switch” on a truck driver and yelling at him if police try to eject him. If that happens, he said, “keep it ringing for as long as possible.”
![The man was led to a police vehicle by two police officers.](https://i.cbc.ca/1.6355974.1701356270!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/original_780/convoy-organizer-chris-barber-arrested-in-ottawa.jpg)
![The man was led to a police vehicle by two police officers.](https://i.cbc.ca/1.6355974.1701356270!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/original_780/convoy-organizer-chris-barber-arrested-in-ottawa.jpg)
Crown says case is not about political views
Judge Heather Perkins McVeigh, who is overseeing the case, will also rule on whether the two defendants acted in concert.
Crown prosecutors Tim Radcliffe and Siobhan Vettcher said the case was not about Mr Rich and Mr Barber’s political views, but how they “crossed the line” when committing the crimes they are accused of. He argued that the problem was whether it was true or not.
They used police and resident testimony, hours of video evidence, and mountains of social media content and text messages to argue that the two defendants controlled and influenced the protests.
They also seek to establish that Rich and Barber conspired and cooperated to commit the crimes they are accused of, and therefore argue that evidence against one should apply to both. . But the defense argued this should be reversed because it did not sufficiently prove that the Crown had an “illicit purpose” in planning the protest.
Once the trial is over, the judge has up to six months to issue a verdict. If convicted of mischief, he could be sentenced to up to 10 years in prison.