A legal document that鈥檚 mapped out what is and isn鈥檛 acceptable in a piece of evidence submitted for a long-running trial is offering a peek into Hells Angels clubhouses.
The document was submitted by the civil forfeiture director, who is trying to get Hells Angels clubhouses in 琉璃神社, East Vancouver and Nanaimo forfeited to the government as the instruments of criminal activity. The Hells Angels have counter-sued the government in an attempt to keep their property, claiming the Civil Forfeiture Act is unconstitutional.
In his analysis of a report used in the case, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Barry Davies discusses apparent biases in the by retired Ontario Provincial Police Det. Staff Sgt. Len Isnor.
Davies ruled that Isnor鈥檚 evidence about Hells Angels establishes 鈥渟erious concerns with respect to the extent that his opinions are tainted by confirmation bias, speculation and tautological reasoning.鈥�
琉璃神社
On Jan. 14, 2016, Isnor conducted an inspection of the exterior of the 琉璃神社 Hells Angels clubhouse, and on March 4, 2016, acting on the consent order issued by Davies, undertook an inspection of the interior of the clubhouse and its contents.
Davies ruled that some of Isnor鈥檚 interpretation of 156 photographs of the 琉璃神社 clubhouse and its contents, as well as his commentary and opinion based upon that interpretation, is inadmissible as expert evidence.
鈥淎gain, I reach that conclusion because of the extent to which much of Isnor鈥檚 interpretation of the photographs of the 琉璃神社 clubhouse and his commentary and opinions based upon his interpretation exhibit confirmation bias,鈥� writes Davies.
Knickknacks and photographs
Isnor goes over the exterior aspects of the clubhouse, including fencing, hedges, gates, and the intercom system and cameras and offers commentary.
READ MORE: NEW BIKER GANG CROPS UP
鈥淔encing and gates like this goes beyond protection from burglary or vandalism, there can be only one purpose: to protect the occupants from attacks by rivals ands to impede any entries made by law enforcement,鈥� he wrote.
Davies said that Isnor鈥檚 suggestion that the gates at the 琉璃神社 clubhouse are to impede law enforcement are speculative, prejudicial and made without admissible evidentiary foundation.
鈥淎s far as I am aware all entries into the 琉璃神社 clubhouse by law enforcement have been judicially authorized and were unimpeded,鈥� said Davies.
Isnor also took issue with a motorcycle in the driveway during his visit.
鈥淭hese are the type of things the HA do to intimidate and I believe the HA placed that motorcycle there purposely to cause me to be apprehensive before I start my inspection,鈥� Isnor said.
That commentary, Davies said, illustrated 鈥渨illingness to cloak even such an insignificant matter with prejudicial commentary.鈥�
READ MORE: TICKETS ISSUED AT POKER RUN
Isnor also noted a photograph of a dinosaur being ridden by a smaller reptilian figure with a Hells Angles death symbol.
He stated that they are for 鈥淚ntimidation and a reminder to individuals in the clubhouse the HA organization is large, organized, closely bonded, violent and that membership provides beneficial privilege. Two (2) photos placed on the wall were most likely hung on the wall for my benefit,鈥� reads a portion of the report.
Davies takes issue with that and said Isnor鈥檚 commentary about that statute as well as his suggestion that two photographs were placed there for his benefit evidence confirmation bias,.
鈥� To the extent Mr. Isnor again personalized the motives of the members of the 琉璃神社 Hells Angels in respect of his inspection the opinions he expresses are speculative and conclusory,鈥� said Davies.
In another piece of evidence, Isnor said a 鈥淲hite/black board is used to communicate in regards to conversations that may be intercepted by law enforcement of their criminality or sensitive business of their HA organization. This boardroom table will be used for their HA meetings and weekly church meetings.鈥�
Davies pointed out that no source is cited for Mr. Isnor鈥檚 opinion about the use of white boards and 鈥淢r. Isnor acknowledged that he has never attended a 鈥渃hurch meeting鈥�. His opinion evidence is also contrary to the evidence of Mr. Atwell adduced by the director,鈥� he said.
鈥淲ithout identification of any source of his opinion I am sufficiently concerned with its reliability that I have determined that any probative value attaching to it is outweighed by the risks to the trial process that can emanate from such unsubstantiated assertions in the cloak of opinion evidence.鈥�
The trial is scheduled to pick back up on April 1.
