Your students’ entire assignment seems to be premised upon this statement and I would like to advise you that at Ms. Guess’ trial there was absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the prosecution and/or the judge were aware of the relationship. The evidence at trial showed that there was some awareness on the part of certain court officials that there was "flirtatious" glancing between the two and this matter was raised with the trial judge.

The evidence at trial was that prior to the commencement of jury selection, the entire jury panel which included Ms. Guess was instructed by the trial judge that if they knew any of the parties to the proceedings, including the accused, they were to advise his Lordship and he would deal with the matter.

I can advise you that at Ms. Guess’ trial a total of nine of her fellow eleven jurors gave evidence. Six jurors gave evidence for the Crown and three were called on behalf of the accused. Each of these fellow jurors, both those called by the Crown and by the accused, gave evidence that they knew that they were not allowed to have any contact with any of the parties to the proceedings and most certainly that included any of the accused. Their evidence was that they knew that because of instructions by the trial judge as well as Sheriff Officers and Deputy Sheriffs and, as a matter of their own good "common sense".

In this country, as in the United States, all criminal trials are held in open court and the proceedings accessible by any member of the public and this of course was the case with respect to Ms. Guess’ trial. There were one or two occasions during pre-trial motions where the public and Ms. Guess were excluded. On these occasions, counsel acting on behalf of Ms. Guess was seeking disclosure of certain matters arising out of intercepted private communications. Under the privacy provisions of the Canadian Criminal Code it is illegal to reveal the intercepted communications of innocent third parties whose conversations happen to be intercepted and that was the issue under discussion. Counsel for Ms. Guess always appreciated that this particular evidence would not form part of the Crown’s case.

Before Ms. Guess’ private communications were intercepted, a judicial authorization was sought and granted by the then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia. I would anticipate that similar safeguards exist with respect to this investigative technique in your country.

This assertion is completely inaccurate. It is true that the Crown decided to only lead evidence of 17 intercepted private communications however counsel for Ms. Guess had always understood that if he wanted to listen to any of the intercepted private communications, he could do so and if he wanted any transcripts prepared of any of them that that would be done for him. That has always been the tradition in this Province with respect to wire-tap evidence. If counsel for Ms. Guess had wanted to listen to any communication and be provided with a copy of the tape and/or transcript of it, that would have been done upon request.

The evidence at trial was that the R.C.M.P. initiated and continued their investigation into both Ms. Guess and Mr. Gill. The reality was that while there was evidence to support the allegations against Ms. Guess (namely admissions to four different individuals as well as in the intercepted communications and relevant cell phone evidence) that that evidence was admissible only against Ms. Guess and not Mr. Gill. It is also a matter of public record that the investigation with respect to Mr. Gill in this matter is still presently ongoing.

For your information, a section of our Criminal Code prohibits the disclosure of jury deliberations with one exception and that exception arises in the circumstance of an investigation and/or of a criminal charge under Section 139(2) involving alleged unlawful conduct by a juror during those deliberations and that is precisely the section of the Criminal Code with which Ms. Guess was charged.