|
More
|
News & Analysis |
|
Air-India suspect appears in court without
turban By
Robert Matas VANCOUVER -- A historic criminal case involving the 1985 Air-India bombing got off to a messy start yesterday after one of the prime suspects was brought into court wearing what looked like a white plastic shower cap pushed down on his head instead of his turban. Vancouver businessman Ripudaman Singh Malik, a devout Sikh who was arrested Friday and charged with the mass murder of 331 people from two bomb explosions 15 years ago, was rushed into court yesterday morning in his prison clothing to allow the judge to see how he is being treated while in custody, his lawyer, Terry La Liberté, said in court. "It's an insult to Mr. Malik and his religion. ". . . It's demeaning, embarrassing," he told the court. "It shows the way he has been treated by the RCMP so far." In another twist in the 15-year-old case, police released a Vancouver resident last night they had arrested Sunday and identified as a suspect in the bombing. He went home without being charged. The person who police described as a suspect declined to comment last night from his Vancouver home. His son said his father was happy to be home. "We expected him back here, he's done nothing wrong." RCMP Constable Cate Galliford said the man was released without charges. She declined to comment on whether he was still considered a suspect in the Air-India bombing or whether police could arrest him again and lay charges at a later time. She also declined to say why the man was picked up or if a lawyer was present when he was questioned. "We cannot comment on any of the direct evidence," she said. Earlier in court, Provincial Court Judge Jane Godfrey ordered Mr. Malik and a second suspect, Kamloops millworker Ajaib Singh Bagri, held until Nov. 30. She did not comment on the unusual head covering. A British Columbia provincial corrections branch spokesman said later that Mr. Malik should have been allowed to wear his turban in the courtroom. "I'm sorry about the mixup," spokesman Wayne Willows said in an interview. Under standard procedures, Mr. Malik was asked to remove anything with string or lace. If he had objected to the request to remove his turban, he would have been permitted to keep it, Mr. Willows said. However, Mr. Malik did not protest, he said. Mr. Malik will be allowed to wear his turban during his next court appearance and while in prison, he added. The turban is a part of the dress for a Sikh when they are in public, although it is not one of the five religious symbols a Sikh is required to always wear, Sikh priest Harkirat Singh said in an interview. "It's our tradition," he said. Prohibiting a religious Sikh from wearing a turban in public is insulting, he added. "It's embarrassing for that person." Mr. Bagri, who faces the same charges as Mr. Malik, was wearing a traditional black head covering. Both Mr. Malik and Mr. Bagri intend to plead not guilty to the charges and will apply soon for bail, their lawyers said yesterday. Mr. La Liberté said the charges against Mr. Malik are weak. "Just the evidence we've been told that they have, it would seem that it's all predicated on a disgruntled employee and a few people that had business dealings with Mr. Malik," he said. Mr. La Liberté said he has been told prosecutors have no wiretap evidence and no direct physical evidence linking Mr. Malik to the crimes. Geoffrey Gaul, spokesman for the province's criminal-justice branch, said Crown prosecutors would not discuss the case before evidence is submitted in the trial. Mr. La Liberté had further criticisms about how his client was treated while in custody. Mr. Malik was taken out of his jail cell on Saturday and interrogated for 12 hours without a chance to consult his lawyer, he said. Mr. La Liberté said he did not find out about the interrogation until he met with Mr. Malik yesterday, shortly before his client made his first appearance in court. He said he had advised Mr. Malik previously not to speak to anyone without his lawyer present and his client told him he did not say anything during his day-long interrogation. However, if Mr. Malik's rights were infringed, any evidence obtained during the interrogation may not be used against him, Mr. La Liberté added. Source: The Globe and Mail October 31, 2000, Tuesday.
|
