A B.C. Supreme Court judge says it has jurisdiction to order the disposal of thousands of pieces of evidence seized from serial killer Robert PicktonB次元官网网址檚 pig farm decades ago, whether it was used in his murder trial or not.
A ruling issued online Wednesday said the RCMP can apply to dispose of some 15,000 pieces of evidence collected from the search of PicktonB次元官网网址檚 property in Port Coquitlam, including B次元官网网址渋tems determined to belong to victims.B次元官网网址�
Police asked the court for directions last year to be allowed to dispose of the mountain of evidence gathered in the case against Pickton, who was convicted of the second-degree murder of six women, although he was originally charged with first-degree murder of 27 women.
Pickton died in May after being attacked in a Quebec prison.
Some family members of victims disputed the disposal because they have a pending civil lawsuit against PicktonB次元官网网址檚 estate and his brother, David Pickton, Yand want to ensure that the evidence they need to prove their case is not dispersed or destroyed.
The court dismissed their bid to intervene in July this year, and the court has now ruled it has the authority to order the disposal of the evidence whether it was used at PicktonB次元官网网址檚 trial or not.
The ruling says police plan to B次元官网网址渂ring a series of applicationsB次元官网网址� for court orders allowing them to get rid of the evidence because they are B次元官网网址渓egally obligated to dispose of the propertyB次元官网网址� since itB次元官网网址檚 no longer needed in any investigation or criminal proceeding.
Justice Frits Verhoeven says in his ruling that there may be reason to doubt if the court has jurisdiction over items seized from the farm that had not be made exhibits.
But he said that will be a decision for later, noting B次元官网网址渢he question as to whether the court retains inherent jurisdiction to order disposal of seized items may remain to be considered, if necessary, in some other case.B次元官网网址�
Jason Gratl, the lawyer representing family members of victims in the civil cases against the Pickton brothers, said in an interview Wednesday that the latest court decision doesnB次元官网网址檛 mean exhibits will be destroyed.
B次元官网网址淎ny concern about the destruction of the evidence is premature. Just because the court will hear the application to allow the RCMP to destroy the evidence does not mean that the court would grant the application,B次元官网网址� he said.
Gratl said that if the RCMP brings an application to get rid of evidence that could be useful in proving the civil cases, he would ask the court for the evidence.
B次元官网网址淲e would be seeking to take possession of any evidence that the RCMP no longer wants in order to prove that civil claim,B次元官网网址� he said.
Gratl said no date has been set for when the civil cases will be heard.
The courtB次元官网网址檚 earlier ruling says the RCMP has agreed to allow some of the civil case plaintiffs B次元官网网址渓imited participationB次元官网网址� in the disposal application process, agreeing to notify them if police identify an B次元官网网址渙wnership or property interest in the itemsB次元官网网址� that theyB次元官网网址檙e applying to destroy.
