[This was transcribed between my first and second Immigration hearing, but I was not aware of it until recently. I seriously wonder if (*) ordered it transcribed at scientology's expense. Scn owns some big legal transcription services. Is this one of them? Painful thing to scan because I wanted to maintain the page and line numbers in it. I have corrected Gregg's last name and Bonefant's so search engines will pick them up.
There is much to do in this testimony about a certain report. The way it is described it can only be the supplementary report written May 21 about the Victoria Day picket and placed on Det. Sgt. McCann's desk that evening--though to nail it down I have to ask her if she was on vacation last May 31. PC Thrush (who wrote the report) and his partner seemed to be somewhat bemused by the scientologists whining about a peaceful protest--Toronto has violent protests on a regular basis.
You can also see that the case officer was deeply misled by the officers--who then failed to back her up. I would not be surprised if that was part of the reason she and Guidy agreed the next week to letting me out.
SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT DATE OF THIS REPORT 2001 /05/21
696 YONGE STREET (CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY) CODE VICTIM or IBM NAME or TYPE OF BUSINESS) CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY 5206
ON MONDAY, MAY 21st, 2001 AT 14:20 HOURS, OFFICERS ATTENDED AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS IN REGARDS TO A DEMONSTRATION.
WHEN THE OFFICERS ARRIVED ON SCENE THEY OBSERVED APPROXIMATELY SIX MALES AND A FEMALE PEACEFULLY DEMONSTRATING WITH PLACARDS IN THEIR HANDS ON THE SIDEWALK SURROUNDING THE PREMISE ON THE FRONT AND SIDE.
THE OFFICERS SPOKE TO THE COMPLAINANT PAT FELSKE PHONE NUMBER BUS(416)925-2145
THE OFFICERS QUERIED KEITH HENSON (DOB: 42/07/12), ON NCIC.
ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL INVOLVED IN THE DEMONSTRATION IS AN ORGANIZER WHOSE NAME IS WILLIAM HAGGLUND (DOB: 51 /05/05).
AS THE OFFICERS WERE LEAVING THE PREMISE AT 15:30 HOURS, THE DEMONSTRATORS ALSO DEPARTED.
SGT. MORGAN #4981 ATTENDED AND WAS ADVISED OF THE CIRCUMSTANCE.
(Signed) Sean Thrush #7995 53 "D"
Sorry, CAPS in original-- Keith Henson]
IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE BOARD
Record of a Detention Review under the
Immigration Act, concerning
KEITH HOWARD HENSON
HELD AT: Toronto West Detention Centre Etobicoke, Ontario DATE: May 31, 2001
BEFORE: C. Simmie - Adjudicator
K.H. Henson - Person Concerned E. Ishmael-Decaire - Case Presenting Officer J. Sandaluk - Counsel n/a - Interpreter
- 2 - 0003-Al-01226 5 ADJUDICATOR: This is a detention review concerning
Keith Howard Henson. Is that you, sir?
PERSON CONCERNED: Yes.
10 ADJUDICATOR: Thank you. My name is Catherine Simmie. I'm an adjudicator. This lady here is Mrs. Decaire. She is a senior immigration officer. She represents the Minister of Immigration at this hearing. Also present is Mr. Sandaluk, who is a barrister and solicitor. He is here 15 to act as your counsel. There are a number of observers to these proceedings. First of all, we have Detective Constable Bonefant (phonetic), Sergeant Glavin, both police officials, and a gentleman by the name of Mr. Demateo (phonetic) who is here representing Now Magazine. 20 The purpose of this detention review, sir, is to determine if you should remain in Immigration's custody pending the conclusion of your dealings with them or if you can be released at this time while those matters are 25 resolved.
I am going to ask Ms Decaire, first of all, to present me with some information"concerning your circumstances so I know why you're in Immigration's custody. Then I am going 30 to ask her to recommend what she thinks I should do this morning about that situation. After I ask her to do that, then I will ask Mr. Sandaluk to do so from his perspective. After I hear from both of them, then I will decide if you should remain in custody or can be released at this point. 35 Do you understand?
PERSON CONCERNED: Yes, Ma'am.
40 ADJUDICATOR: Okay. There are two reasons for which I could say you had to stay in custody. Either one or both could be used as grounds for doing so. One is if I don't believe that you would otherwise be available for whatever
- 3 - 0003-A1-01226
5 may be required. There is, if I should decide that your being at liberty would be likely to pose a danger to the Canadian public, I could say you had to stay in custody for both of those reasons if I thought both applied in the circumstances of your situation. 10 Do you understand?
PERSON CONCERNED: Yes, Ma'am.
15 ADJUDICATOR: If I decide to issue an order for your release from custody, I can require certain guarantees be in place before you are released. Those guarantees can include the requirement for a cash bond or what's called a performance guarantee. That is someone's promise in 20 writing that they will pay the government of Canada a certain amount of money if you should fail to do whatever it is that may be required of you. I could also have you sign what is called an acknowledgement of terms and conditions, which is essentially your own promise in 25 writing that you will do whatever it is that may be required for any combination of those three.
Do you understand?
30 PERSON CONCERNED: Yes, Ma'am.
ADJUDICATOR: Okay. Mrs. Decaire?
CASE PRESENTING OFFICER: What I am going to do is 35 present to you the Notice of Arrest because I have given counsel a copy. It outlines the information in the possession of the Commission at this point just very briefly. And the two officers from the police department are here to indicate to you that they are -- and I can do 40 this on their behalf -- indicate that there is more information that we hope to obtain. And, of course, we would have to disclose it to counsel.
- 4 - 0003-A1-01226
5 One of the problems today is that the photocopier at the institution here is not working, and there is a package of at least perhaps maybe 100 pages given to me this morning which was not available before today. So I haven't had an opportunity to discuss it with counsel or to digest I 10 the contents.
But the Notice of Arrest basically outlines the concerns of the Commission. And perhaps you would want to recess for a few minutes to read that, and then I will 15 summarize our position.
ADJUDICATOR: I will mark the Notice of Arrest as Attachment 1 to these proceedings and recess briefly in order to read it. 20
- - - ATTACHMENT 1: NOTICE OF ARREST.
- - - REVIEW RECESSED - - - - - - REVIEW RESUMED - - - 25 ADJUDICATOR: This hearing is resumed. Both Mr. Henson and I have had an opportunity during the recess to read through the Notice 'of Arrest that the Department has provided. 30 Mrs. Decaire, if you could continue.
CASE PRESENTING OFFICER: Yes. Just to summarize, there is a conviction, it would appear, that was registered 35 in the State of California for which Mr. Henson failed to appear for sentencing. At this point, he is considered to be a fugitive from the United States, and upon arrival to Canada, did not disclose the information about this criminal record, which would have resulted in him failing 40 to obtain admission to Canada.
At this point, the report and direction that he is facing at inquiry, the inquiry will conclude with a
- 5 - 0003-A1-01226
5 possible removal order. And if he is facing removal from Canada, we have concerns that he poses a flight risk, specifically because he failed to appear in the United States for sentencing. There is a warrant for his arrest registered in California for which were he to return to the 10 United States and he were to appear for sentencing, he is facing a possible jail term, which is my understanding that he seeks to elude. Now, some of the information is coming from information in the package which isn't completely available at this point, but it's my understanding he is 15 considering making a refugee claim, in which case he feels at this point that he is unable to return to the United States. I think it is reasonable to conclude if he were at liberty that he would seek to elude Immigration, seek to elude his removal to the United States and possible jail 20 term.
Now, there is more information coming as well from the
Toronto Police Fugitive Squad in terms of activities in Canada that he is alleged to have engaged in that would 25 lead to a conclusion that he may pose a danger to the Canadian public if at liberty.
So at, this point, based on my understanding of the Notice of Arrest that you have and the information we have 30 at this point, I am going to suggest to you that the ground of danger apply in the absence of any evidence to c ontradict that.
Subject to any clarification that you require from the 35 observers that are present, all I can advise you is that we -- I have been told there is more information which will be available, we hope, within the next week. Now, I was going to suggest that if you prefer to have a complete package in front of you before making a decision, that you could 40 schedule a date to continue with the detention review. If you feel that you can proceed today with whatever I can present, then that would be fine as well.
- 6 - 0003-A1-01226
5 ADJUDICATOR: Just if I can clarify a couple of things that you said. You mention this package of material that you have been unable to provide a copy of to counsel. This information comes from the Fugitive Squad officers. Is. that ---
10 CASE PRESENTING OFFICER: It's essentially from them and we have to verify the source as well.
ADJUDICATOR: Okay. And this additional information 15 that is expected is further to what is contained in that package of material?
CASE PRESENTING OFFICER: That's correct. And it pertains more particularly to Canada. That is my 20 understanding.
ADJUDICATOR: And you are seeking the detention on the danger basis at this point based on the information that is contained in the Notice of Arrest? 25 CASE PRESENTING OFFICER: Yes. In that it is specified here that, as far as we understand, there is a history of Mr. Henson being involved with and also stating that he is an explosives expert, that there are targeted 30 sites involved in the Church of Scientology. And it is not know at this point which sites, if any, involve Canadian territory. He has made threats against the Church of Scientology, as far as I'm aware. One of the past convictions is involved with that same platform, and in 35 addition to which he is continuing in that activity. That was one of the purposes for coming to Canada, to continue to protest or picket the Church of Scientology.
ADJUDICATOR: Mr. Sandaluk? 40 COUNSEL: Thank you, Madam Adjudicator. Before I get into my submissions, there's just a couple of things I wonder if Ms Decaire could clarify that I didn't quite
- 7 - 0003-A1-01226
5 understand. Just to clarify, there is no pending criminal charges against Mr. Henson?
CASE PRESENTING OFFICER: Not that I'm aware of. o
10 COUNSEL: And are there any expected to be in the near future?
CASE PRESENTING OFFICER: I wouldn't know at this point. 15 COUNSEL: Okay. And even under the Fugitives Offenders Act?
CASE PRESENTING OFFICER: Not that I'm aware of. 20 COUNSEL: Okay. Thank you.
This is kind of an unusual case, Madam Adjudicator. I will acknowledge that from the beginning. It is unusual to 25 have this much material before you at a 48-hour detention review hearing.
That being said, the first thing I would like to take issue with is the Minister's submission that you rely on 30 the contents of this arrest report and on information which is not included in the record today but which is anticipated to be forthcoming to base a finding of a danger decision. In my submission, it is only appropriate for this Tribunal to consider the issue of danger and of flight 35 risk on the basis of the material which is before it, not the material which is anticipated to be before it, not the material which cannot be before it because of a photocopy or error or malfunction. You can only rely, in my respectful submission, on the material which is before you 40 right now, and as it stands right now, that material consists entirely of an arrest -- a Notice of Arrest under Section 103 of the Immigration Act, nothing more.
- 8 - 0003-A1-01226
5 Now, with respect to the issue of danger to the public, I think it's interesting to note the circumstances surrounding that conviction in the United States. Mr. Henson was convicted of -- I will see if I have the label of the charge here. Under Section 422.6 of the California 10 -- I guess the Penal Code, intimidate, threaten, oppress because of race, religion, colour are classified as a misdemeanour. The actual circumstances surrounding that offence essentially, in my understanding, relate to statements that were made on the internet regarding the 15 ease or precision with which an intercontinental ballistic missile could be aimed at a site owned and controlled by the Church of Scientology in California.
Now, before you make a finding on danger to the 20 public, in my submission you have to consider not only the threat itself. You have to consider whether or not it was reasonable to believe that Mr. Henson has the ability to obtain and target an intercontinental ballistic missile at a compound in California, whether or not that is reasonable 25 in the first place, and you also, in my submission, have to consider whether or not it's reasonable to believe that other people would feel threatened by the prospect of a single person essentially launching a nuclear missile at their compound. In my submission, that is really not 30 reasonable.
The offence to which Ms Decaire refers is Mr. Henson's
only conviction in any country, in Canada or the United States. My understanding is that the reason Mr. Henson was 35 not arrested under the Fugitive Offenders' Act is because that offence, that misdemeanour in California, is not an extraditable offence. Ordinarily, I am sure you are aware, Madam Adjudicator, that when an individual is arrested by the Fugitive Squad, what happens is they are charged under 40 the Fugitive Offenders' Act and they are brought before a criminal court where they must make bail before they are brought to an immigration hearing. That simply did not occur in this case. The reason it didn't occur is because
- 9 - 0003-A1-01226
5 the offence isn't serious enough under the extradition treaty between Canada and the United States.
Now, with respect to the suggestion that Mr. Hens an is a danger to the Church of Scientology, the past threats - 10 I believe that the individual -- I think it's Officer Smith --
Steven Smith, who completed this report -- yes, Steven Smith. I believe he must be referring to this threat regarding an intercontinental ballistic missile which, in my submission, doesn't really disclose a danger to the 15 public of any kind.
In terms of his skill with explosives, I'm not sure the source of that information. I understand something may have been read on the internet, but it's not entirely clear 20 to me either who posted that information, who wrote it and where it appeared. And my understanding is there were no specific threats of any kind made against any Church of Scientology other than this broad generalisation about the ease with which an ICBM may be targeted at this location in 25 California.
Now, it is true that Mr. Henson has picketed the Church of ,Scientology in California and that he also came to Canada for that purpose. Now, in my submission though, 30 picketing at the Church of Scientology simply does not represent a danger to anyone at all, especially given that in his particular case there is no history of violence of any kind. This one threat which is, I think, the one threat which he was convicted of making is so completely 35 grandiose that it really requires a complete suspension of belief for anyone to be seriously concerned about that.
Now, I am not aware of the Toronto Police investigation that is proceeding at this point. Perhaps 40 the officers who are here can advise you of that, but my understanding is that there is simply no danger posed to the Canadian public whatsoever. Now, it's obviously trite law, as they say, that your considerations surrounding
- 10 - 0003-A1-01226
5 danger to the public concerns only the Canadian public. It does not concern the fears regarding a church in California. Your jurisdiction is Canada, and you have to consider whether or not scientologists or anyone in Canada, for that matter, would be at risk should Mr. Henson be 10 released to the Canadian public.
In my submission, there is no evidence before you -- there is no material before you today whatsoever to lead to that conclusion. In my submission, you have got basically 15 an individual who has been convicted of making a very bizarre threat, but that's it. That's really all there is to base a decision on danger to the public, and in my submission, that is really not sufficient.
20 Now, I do appreciate the Minister's submission that there is a lot of material here, and I certainly don't wish to cast any shadows over Ms Decaire, but I would note that this is a 48-hour detention review. Mr. Henson was arrested on Monday and, in fact, the 48-hour detention 25 review would ordinarily, I understand, have been held yesterday if he was arrested on the 28th. Now, in my submission, the Minister has had sufficient time within the meaning of, the Immigration Act to gather together all of the material upon which your decision on danger to the 30 public and on flight risk can be based. In my submission, it is not reasonable for you to base a decision on evidence that may be coming or even to extend this hearing in order to allow the Minister additional time. In my submission, the Minister has had sufficient time. In fact, the 35 Minister has had more time than is contemplated by the Immigration Act. So really all you have in terms of danger to the public is this one fantastic threat or this one suggestion that a nuclear missile could be aimed at a compound, of course, in California. 40 Now, with respect to flight risk, this is, in my submission, the more serious part of the Minister's case, whether or not Keith Henson would appear for future
- 11 - 0003-A1-01226
5 proceedings both before the Adjudication Division, the Refugee Board and before the Minister of Immigration for the making of removal arrangements and removal, should that become necessary. Well, in my submission Keith Henson can absolutely be relied on to comply with whatever term and l0 condition can be imposed.
Now, we are not here today, Madam Adjudicator, to suggest that you simply take our word that he will do as he is told. There is a bondsperson available. It is a close 15 friend of Keith's. His name is -- I will spell his name for you. It's William Greg Hagglund.
ADJUDICATOR: H-A ---
20 COUNSEL: It's H-A-G-G-L-E-U-N-D. He lives in Oakville, Ontario. I will give you his address as well. It is 2237 Munn Avenue, Oakville, Ontario, L6H 3M9. Greg Hagglund is a close friend of Keith Henson. They have known each other, beginning with an acquaintanceship over 25 20 years ago, but they have become especially close friends in the last five or six years with both of them involved at these demonstrations against the Church of Scientology.
Mr. Hagglund is a former Customs agent himself. He has got no criminal record. He is a citizen of Canada. He was 30 born in this country. Although he has never posted an immigration bond before, he has assured me that he understands all of the implications of the bond. He is not a wealthy man, but he is willing to put up a substantial portion of his property. He is a home owner, and he is 35 willing to put up that bond as a -- that house as a bond to ensure Keith Henson's compliance with terms and conditions. There is also a cash bond that he is able to post as well, I understand, drawing on a line of credit that he has with a local bank in 0akville. 40 Before we get to the exact amounts of the bond, there are some other terms and conditions that I would propose are appropriate. I am advised by Mr. Hagglund that Keith
- 12 - 0003-A1-01226
5 Henson is welcome to stay at his home, and in my submission, that would actually be an appropriate order for this Tribunal. Greg Hagglund is a very close friend, but the additional assurance of having Keith Henson live with him in his home so he is able to monitor his everyday 10 movements and activities would further ensure that he is compliant with any terms and conditions that this Board may impose. I would note, Madam Adjudicator, that I was advised prior to this hearing by Greg Hagglund himself that he takes these matters very seriously. He is a law- 15 abiding person, and in fact, to illustrate the point, he advised me of how he previously reported his own son to the police before when his son had had a problem with drugs in the past. In that he was willing to turn in his own son to the police in order to face charges, he assures me that he 20 would have no hesitation whatsoever to turn Keith Henson over to the authorities -- in this case the Immigration authorities -- should he breach any term or condition imposed.
25 In addition to the requirement that Keith Henson live with Greg Hagglund, in my submission, also a reporting requirement is appropriate in this case. In my submission, monthly reporting should be sufficient in order to satisfy the Minister of Immigration and this Tribunal that Keith 30 Henson remains in the vicinity and that they are aware of his movement and location. Now, bear in mind, Madam Adjudicator, I would suggest the monthly reporting condition as the absolute most we are willing to agree to. I have discussed this at length with my client before the 35 hearing today, and he has assured me that he is going to consent to any order, any reporting order that you should see fit to propose. So whether it's monthly, weekly, bi- weekly, what have you, in my submission, an appropriate order is monthly, but we are obviously open to whatever 40 order this Board may see fit to impose.
Obviously, also prohibitions against committing offences or committing acts in Canada which lead to
- 13 - 0003-A1-01226
5 convictions under the Criminal Code or any other act of parliament would also be appropriate.
Now, in terms of the size of the bond, I am advised by
Greg Hagglund that he is not a wealthy person, but that he 10 does own his home clear. And based on that, he is prepared to post a $10,000 performance bond, using that home, which is not an insignificant performance bond. In addition to that performance bond, he is able to post, drawing on his line of credit, between a $6,000 and $10,000 cash bond. 15 Now, in my submission, it's not appropriate to impose a $10,000 cash bond on Greg Hagglund. In my submission, this Board is required by law to order release on reasonable terms and conditions. For an individual in Mr. Hagglund's situation, a $10,000 cash bond coupled with a 20 $10,000 performance bond places an unduly onerous imposition on him. That being said, I wish to make that known to you, Madam Adjudicator, that those bonds are certainly available to be posted in this case.
25 Now, in addition to that, I would ask you to consider the issues surrounding his flight from California, his failure to appear for sentencing. Just to make sure we al understand this, what I understand happened was that he was convicted by a jury, or he was found guilty by a jury in 30 California of his offence, threaten, harass, intimidate because of race, colour or religion. It is a misdemeanour, and after the jury renders a guilty verdict, the judgment must be registered -- entered and registered and then referred to a judge for sentencing. The sentencing was to 35 have occurred on May 16th of this year, and at that point he was still in Canada, intending to go home, but obviously he did not do that. My information is that the reason he did not do that is because he began to fear that his life would be in danger if he returned to the United States for 40 sentencing at that court. Now, that's what caused him to make the decision that he remain in Canada in order to -- in this case, in order to make a Convention refugee claim. Now, in my submission this is a pretty extraordinary
- 14 - 0003-A1-01226
5 circumstance in the mind of our client that caused him to breach the court order and fail to appear for a sentencing hearing. And in my further submission, it's not something that you should rely upon in order to find him a flight- risk and decline to issue an order for release. In my 10 submission, Mr. Henson is not only aware of the circumstances of this proceeding and the implications of this proceeding, but he is also aware that it is very much in his interest to comply with this Board and with Immigration at every step in the process. One of the 15 distinctions between the order for release that we are proposing today and the order for release that Mr. Henson was on in California is that he was released on his own recognizance in California. There was no imposition of any kind of bond, no strict conditions, anything of that nature 20 issued by the California Board. That varies significantly from the imposition of what I would describe as a very substantial bond and a very strict terms and conditions that this Board has the jurisdiction to issue.
25 Now, in my submission, when you consider the existence of this bondsperson and the imposition of these terms and conditions that I proposed, it is a completely different situation,than the one that Mr. Henson left in California when he came to Canada, and on that basis, in my 30 submission, this Board should not find that he represents a flight risk and, in fact, should find that he is likely to report for Immigration and this Board at any subsequent proceedings.
35 Now, furthermore, I think it's appropriate for this Board to find that Greg Hagglund has the ability to exercise a substantial amount of control over Mr. Henson, given that they have been very close friends. They have been united in~essentially the same cause for five years, 40 and that they would be living at the same home. Mr. Hagglund has the ability, both by the influence that he exerts over their friendship and also by the ability that he has to contact the police or Immigration authorities
- 15 - 0003-A1-01226
5 should Keith Henson breach the terms and conditions of his release, to ensure that Keith Henson complies. In addition to that, if you have any further questions about Keith's ability or willingness to comply with terms and conditions of release, I would certainly propose that you ask him 10 today. He would be more than willing to expand on those, as would Mr. Hagglund, who is presently waiting outside in the outer lobby of this detention centre. I have advised him that the Board may have questions for him, and he has indicated that he is certainly willing to answer any 15 questions that you or Ms Decaire may have.
In terms of any further conditions, for example, avoidance of property owned or controlled by the Church of Scientology or any other such institution, we are amenable 20 to those terms and conditions. In my submission, however, it is not necessary to impose those terms and conditions in order to ensure that Mr. Henson is not a flight risk and does not pose a danger to the Canadian public. There has been no danger to the Canadian public alleged here really. 25 The only suggestion of a danger to anybody has occurred in California. There is no material put forward whatsoever to suggest that there is anybody in Canada who is at risk or has been threatened by Mr. Henson in any way, shape or form. 30 In my submission, this is an appropriate case for release on the strict terms and conditions and on the substantial bond that we have proposed.
35 Now, to be honest, I am a little amazed -- it's not very often that I do a detention review hearing with officers from the Fugitive Squad sitting in, and I think that some of the hype that has surrounded this case may have tended to-distort the facts a little bit. However, I 40 think that when you do consider the facts which are before you, Madam Adjudicator, you will conclude that this is an appropriate case to order release from custody, notwithstanding the presence of police officers,
- 16 - 0003-A1-01226
5 notwithstanding the reporting of this incident in newspapers or the presence of the press in this hearing room today. In my submission, there is really only one order that is appropriate, but at the same time, I don't wish you to feel I am committed by the amount of the bond, 10 by the terms and conditions of release or by any other such thing as proposed. I proposed what I feel is appropriate, but we are certainly willing to consent to more restrictive terms or what have you should the Board feel that is appropriate. But at any rate, pending any comments or 15 questions from yourself or Ms Decaire, those are my submissions.
ADJUDICATOR: I just had one question, and I don't know if you will know the answer, and if not, maybe Mr. 20 Henson can advise. You mentioned that Mr. Hagglund and he had been united in the same cause for the last number of years. Was Mr. Hagglund aware of Mr. Henson's dealings with the court system in the United States?
25 COUNSEL: Yes, he was aware of the dealings with the court system in the United States. He was also aware of the threat that Mr. Henson perceived, should he be incarcerated in the United States, and it was -- they were actually together when Mr. Henson was arrested. I think it 30 was Oakville that he was arrested in. But he was aware of this court charge and of the court date.
ADJUDICATOR: Did Mr. Hagglund know of Mr. Henson's court involvement before he came here, or did he find out 35 about it after he got here?
COUNSEL: I would have to ask Mr. Henson about that.
ADJUDICATOR: Mr. Henson?
PERSON CONCERNED: It's (inaudible) incredibly well on the story on the internet from us.
- 17 - 0003-A1-01226
5 ADJUDICATOR: So Mr. Hagglund was aware of the situation in California before you came here?
PERSON CONCERNED: Yes. '
10 ADJUDICATOR: Okay. And Mr. Henson, was he staying with Mr. Hagglund before he was arrested, to your knowledge?
COUNSEL: Yes, he was. 15
CASE PRESENTING OFFICER: May I briefly reply when you're ready? 20 ADJUDICATOR: Yes. One other question, and I think I know the answer to the question, but you mentioned that Mr. Hagglund had been a -- was a former Customs officer. Do I take it that he's retired now?
25 COUNSEL: Yes, he's retired from the Customs Office. I understand he's working as an actor, but he is no longer working at the Customs Service.
30 ADJUDICATOR: And is this actor -- is his occupation as an actor a full-time profession or ---
COUNSEL: I'm not sure how many hours a week. You could ask him that, but I understand he's not a 35 particularly successful or wealthy actor,. The bonds that are proposed are very substantial.
ADJUDICATOR: Okay. Mrs. Decaire?
40 CASE PRESENTING OFFICER: I just want to reply on the record. At the time the Notice of Arrest was prepared, the initial case of the evidence and information that we had was sufficient, in the Commission's opinion, to justify
- 18 - 0003-A1-01226
5 detention. Now we are at a point of discovering that more information is available, and the purpose of the officers was to advise you today, if you wish, an outline of the extent of the additional evidence or information that is available. It's my understanding just briefly that there 10 are members of the Canadian public who may be at risk, considering what is believed to be Mr. Henson's activities since arrival in Canada, and I believe it includes surveillance of a Canadian citizen. I don't know if it is completely accurate, as counsel said, that there are no 15 specific threats that have been made. And again, I can't impress upon you enough the importance of reviewing the material in the package that I have, and the best I can do is offer to return at 1:30 with it if you would like to review it, but I don't know that it's practical to be able 20 to digest it in one -- in a few minutes.
The point is that there is a certain psychological profile that emerges from the writings of Mr. Henson himself, things that he has published on the internet that 25 are public information. He invites people who are sympathetic to his cause to support and donate to his cause, and I believe that he is one of the people who is also very sympathetic to what it is that he purports that he is doing.
30 Now, I believe one of the reasons he was released in the United States is because he was in the public eye, and what has been noted following his failing to appear in court that even some of his fans were quite surprised by 35 the manner in which he has acted because it may bring the cause that he is forwarding into disrepute. The point is that he has made an error in judgment, in my opinion, and that isn't to say that is an excuse and that isn't to say that he won't do it again. I think the honourable thing in 40 a case like this is to negotiate -- to surrender to the United States authorities and agree to deportation. He is instead putting forward a refugee claim. You have heard the basis for it from counsel, and I think, if anything, it
- 19 - 0003-A1-01226
5 would cause you to have more concerns that he in fact is not intending to return to the United States at any point that he feels that his safety is in danger or that his cause would be jeopardized by his incarceration. In any event, the point of the additional information from the 10 offices is to establish the danger and your opinion that in fact danger applies. The flight risk has been outlined more clearly.
And if you wish, as I said, to reserve any decision on IS the danger issue, all I can do is propose to you that the package that is going to be available in a short period of time can be made available, and you can review that as well and then render a decision on both grounds. That's about all I can do at this point is offer to you what is 20 available. If you are in a position to make a decision at this point without whatever else -- and again, the officers are here to tell me what else there is that we know of at this point -- then I would invite you to make a decision.
25 ADJUDICATOR: From what you are saying now, I guess I misunderstood what you were suggesting the purpose of the officers was in their presence here. If you are suggesting that they had information that may lead to a conclusion with respect to public safety issues here, then clearly I 30 should hear from them, in my estimation. Is that in fact what you are suggesting?
CASE PRESENTING OFFICER: I only received a brief outline of what they could testify to. The main point is 35 that they have evidence and documents that they would like to present in conjunction with any information they could provide. So at this point, all that they could give you is an outline from what they expect.
40 ADJUDICATOR: And that evidence in documents is the documents that you have with you but haven't been able to present either to counsel or to myself?
- 20 - 0003-A1-01226
5 CASE PRESENTING OFFICER: Additional papers. What I have today is more United States and Internet. What they are hoping to obtain is information pertaining to Canada, the Toronto Police Reports Surveillance information. You can ask them what the extent is of what they have. 10 COUNSEL: If I may, just on the point of asking the officers questions, I am sure you appreciate the point that any individual is presumed innocent until they are proven guilty of an offence, and in this case no one has even been. IS charged with anything. If the officers have something to say or have some evidence or -- excuse me, if Mrs. Decaire has some evidence to adduce from the officers, it's your decision. I mean, obviously it is your decision if it's relevant to the proceeding, but I would submit that I 20 should have the opportunity to cross-examine each officer on whatever evidence it is they give, and I also still stand on my original submission that it is not appropriate to base a decision on material which is anticipated in coming. We are not even talking about the material that 25 cannot be photocopied here. We are talking about material that we anticipate being produced presumably from the Fugitive Squad at some point in the future. In my submission, this is all very vaporous, I guess. You know, I don't know what the officers could possibly have to add, 30 but they are to give evidence, we should have a right to cross-examine them.
ADJUDICATOR: Okay. Perhaps I can ask the two officers just generally, is the information that Mrs. 35 Decaire seems to believe that you have available at this point?
POLICE OFFICER: Right now, no, it's not available. Unfortunately, the officers who do have the information are 40 not working. Therefore, I can't get it.
ADJUDICATOR: Do you have any personal knowledge of what that information is?
- 21 - 0003-A1-01226
5 POLICE OFFICER: All I know is that Mr. Henson and Mr. Greg Hagglund were involved in an incident down at 52 Division. A report was taken. I have not seen the report because it's at a supervisor's desk who is on holidays' So as soon as that supervisor returns, I would be able to see 10 the report and exactly what is outlined in that report.
ADJUDICATOR: And when is that supervisor expected to return from his holidays?
I5 POLICE OFFICER: She is expected -- due back on Monday. Hopefully Monday.
ADJUDICATOR: Okay. And it is that report that, it is your understanding or Mrs. Decaire's understanding gives 20 rise to the concerns here?
POLICE OFFICER: Yes.
COUNSEL: Madam Adjudicator, may I ask a couple of 25 quick questions?
ADJUDICATOR: This is Detective Constable Bonefant.
COUNSEL: Are you aware of the danger report?
30 POLICE OFFICER: No, I am not.
ADJUDICATOR: The officer who took the report?
35 POLICE OFFICER: No, I'm not.
COUNSEL: Are you aware of what the report alleges?
POLICE OFFICER: No, I'm not. 40 COUNSEL: In your experience, if there were perceived to be a real threat to an individual, a Canadian citizen or
- 22 - 0003-A1-01226
5 other person here, is it normal that the report would not be acted on for a number of days?
POLICE OFFICER: As I said, I don't know, what's in the
report. It's been (inaudible) to the investigating 10 officer. I am not the investigating officer.
COUNSEL: Hypothetically, if you were the investigating officer and you anticipated the report disclosed a danger to a Canadian person or a person who is 15 in Canada, what would you do?
POLICE OFFICER: I can't answer a hypothetical question. You have to be presented with facts.
20 COUNSEL: But you're not aware of what those facts are?
POLICE OFFICER: I just finished saying to you the report is on a supervisor's desk who is on holidays, and 25 when she returns, I will have a look at the report at that time, but I will not answer a hypothetical question, sir.
COUNSEL: Thank you.
30 CASE PRESENTING OFFICER: Can I just point out for the record that Mr. Henson has been detained because of the bench warrant that was issued for his failing to appear. So he is deemed or. considered to be a fugitive from the United States. He is incarcerated. So I don't think that 5 there would have been an urgency to act on the report without knowing the date of the report. At this moment he's in detention.
COUNSEL: Well, I wouldn't ---
40 ADJUDICATOR: I'm sorry, you're talking about an urgency to act on the report that Detective Constable Bonefant has just spoken of?
- 23 - 0003-A1-01226
5 CASE PRESENTING OFFICER: In that counsel seems to be suggesting in his questions that if there was a perceived threat that had any validity, that there should be some charges laid. That's all I'm saying. 10 COUNSEL: My only comment on that, Madam, would be that Mr. Henson, as far as the police or whoever has possession of that report, as far as they know, he could be released today and could be -- have any opportunity to act 15 on any threat or perceived danger between now and next Monday when the supervisor gets back. So it's not -- in my submission, Ms Decaire's argument that there is no reason to see it as an imminent threat because he is in detention doesn't really stand out because there's a review of the 20 reasons for the detention on the Thursday prior to the Monday when the supervisor gets back. So I don't entirely follow Ms Decaire's submission on that point.
ADJUDICATOR: Okay. Thank you. We will recess 25 briefly.
- - - REVIEW RECESSED - - - - - - REVIEW RESUMED - - -
30 ADJUDICATOR: This hearing is resumed. The same parties are present.
Mr. Henson, the issue I have to determine at this point is whether or not you should remain in Immigration's 35 custody pending the conclusion of their dealings with you.
The Immigration Department seeks your detention both on the grounds that you are a person likely to pose a danger to the public here in Canada and a person who is 40 otherwise unlikely to appear for those proceedings which, in their estimation, may lead to an order being made for your removal from Canada, and your removal from Canada ultimately resulting in their opinion in your return to the
- 24 - 0003-A1-01226
5 United States to face further court matters in that jurisdiction.
Counsel seeks your release and has recommended a bondsperson and terms and conditions of release that he 10 indicates, in his estimation are appropriate, although he indicates as well that other terms and conditions that I may deem necessary certainly are willing to be considered both by the bondsperson and by yourself in terms of compliance with those requirements. 15 The basis for the Department's suggestion that you are
likely to pose a danger to the public revolves in part around their information that you have been convicted in California of the offence that has been discussed during 20 the course of this detention review. There certainly seems to be an acknowledgement in your counsel's submission that there was a guilty finding following the travel in the United States and there were sentencing matters to be attended to that have not been attended to because of your 25 continuing presence here in Canada. (CASSETTE CHANGE)... based on information, that is not at this point available that there may be risk to the Canadian public, in part, as I understand it, related to the cause that you espoused and in part due to actions that you may or may not have 30 undertaken here in Canada.
Detective Constable Bonefant made mention of an incident report that is currently sitting in a police supervisor's office waiting for her return to deal with. 35 He is not aware of the contents of that report. He is not aware of the nature of the incident that led to the report and he is unable to provide any indication to these proceedings as to what exactly may have been the events that led to that report being made. 40 Under the circumstances, in the absence of any information concerning what may or may not have transpired that led to that report, I am not prepared to find that
- 25 - 0003-A1-01226
5 what may be presented in the future is something I can base a decision that you are likely to pose a danger to the public on.
That leaves me with only the information that I have 10 available at this point with respect to events that it is suggested have occurred in the United States prior to your arrival here and concerns that may be generated by that. I don't have the benefit, unfortunately, of the extensive information that Mrs. Decaire has with her at this point. 15 It seems, from what she has suggested, that even she has not had much of an opportunity to review the documentary package that has been provided to her, and certainly counsel has not had any opportunity to do so either. There may well be information in that package of material that 20 may lead to concerns more specifically relating to danger to the public aspects of your situation, but based on the information that I have before me at this point that is available not only to me but also to counsel and to the Department's representative, I don't believe that it's fair 25 to form an opinion that you are likely to pose a danger to the public at this point in Canada.
Now, when and if that information is presented, I or another adjudicator may draw a different conclusion, but I 30 think at this point there is insufficient information for me to conclude that you would be likely to pose a danger to the public in Canada, notwithstanding the information that has been provided during the course of this detention review to the effect that you have been convicted or been 35 found guilty by a trial process in the United States of an offence, the details of which have been referred to in counsel's submission.
I am, however, of the view that your detention is 40 necessary to ensure your availability for processes which may ultimately result in your being issued with a removal order. I am of the view that you cannot be relied upon to report as directed for an inquiry, for refugee-related
- 26 - 0003-A1-01226
5 processes if a refugee claim is pursued and/or for your removal from Canada, should that eventually be ordered.
I have considered the guaranties that are available to
you from Mr. Hagglund, and I don't believe at this point 10 it is necessary to speak directly with him. I am prepared -- or I was prepared to do so if I had felt there was any question with respect to the information that was provided, but I have no reason at this point to doubt what Mr. Sandaluk has told me about Mr. Hagglund, his relationship 15 with you and the guaranties that he is willing to offer. I do, however, have questions with respect to his ability and/or willingness to exercise control over your behaviour. It is suggested that he espouses the same cause as you do, that being in opposition to the Church of Scientology, part 20 of the purpose, as I understand it, for which you have travelled to Canada being to protest or picket against this organization. He has been a close friend of yours for a number of years based, in part, as I understand it, on his agreement with the cause that he -- that you and he both 25 espouse. As such, given the nature of the concerns that had been registered with respect to why you may have been reluctant to return to the United States, it is my opinion there may be some reluctance there on Mr. Hagglund's behalf to place you in a situation, notwithstanding what he 30 may or may not have done with his own son with respect to turning him over to the police in connection with matters relating to his circumstances.
Mr. Hagglund also was aware, according to the 35 information you provided, before you cafe to Canada of the circumstances of the situation in California. If, as you say, he was intimately aware, not only of the court proceedings, but of the results of the court proceedings, I think it's only reasonable to assume he also was intimately 40 aware of the fact that you should have returned to the United States or been in the United States for sentencing purposes on a specific date, and there is no indication that he made any efforts to ensure that you did return to
- 27 - 0003-A1-01226
5 the United States to deal with those matters. Now, that again may be related to the reasons why it is suggested you did not return to the United States, but it acknowledged that you did not return to the United States to face the judgment of the court. It is suggested there are reasons 10 why you did not do so, but it is clear that from the information that your failure to return to the United States was deliberate.'
Under the circumstances, I am of the view that you 15 would not at this point willingly make yourself available for processes, inquiry, refugee-related and/or removal- related that may ultimately result in your return to the United States to deal with those matters that may be outstanding there. 20 For those reasons, I am not going to issue an order for your release at this time. I am going to instead order your detention on the grounds that I am not satisfied otherwise you would be available as required for the 25 continuation of these proceedings.
There will be another review of this matter in one week's time. Under normal circumstances, that would be the scheduled date for the continuation of this matter, the 30 next detention review.
Do you understand?
PERSON CONCERNED: Yes, Ma'am. 35 ADJUDICATOR: This hearing is concluded.
- - - REVIEW CONCLUDED - - -
- 28 - 0003-A1-01226
I HEREBY DECLARE THAT THIS IS A TRUE TRANSCRIPT OF THE TAPE AND THAT I 10 HAVE SWORN AN OATH OF SECRECY.
NADIA TURNER, TRANSCRIPTIONIST 15 FOR INTERNATIONAL ROSE REPORTING (CENTRAL) INC.
June 5, 2001