More Articles... VERDICT STANDS - R. v. Reyat, Inderjit Singh Reyat appeals from his conviction on 19 September 2010 on one count of perjury, COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA MUST PAY - R. v. Malik, Mr. Malik, applies for an order that the Crown reimburse his legal costs of over $9,200,000 incurred in defending himself in the “Air India” terrorist bombing trial. DISMISSED - British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Malik, BC was awarded judgment against Ripudaman Singh Malik for $5,200,132.51 plus pre-judgment interest; Malik applies to have dismissal set aside COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Malik, 2011 SCC 18, [2011) Province seeks reimbursement of more than $5.2 million it paid to fund Mr. Malik’s defence in the Air India bombing trial SUPREME COURT OF CANADA British Columbia (The Attorney General) v. Malik, Province petitions for foreclosure of Ripudaman Singh Malik’s half interest in what is referred to as the “Hamilton Street” property and the other as against Khalsa Developments British Columbia (The Attorney General) v. Malik, action against the defendant Ripudaman Singh Malik (“R.S. Malik”) in debt for $5,200,131.31 plus prejudgment interest, for advances made to fund R.S. Malik’s defence SUPREME COURT OF CANADA Province seeks reimbursement of more than $5.2 million it paid to fund Mr. Malik’s defence in the Air India bombing trial i British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Malik, Supplementary reasons as to costs in appeals in foreclosure matter Supplementary reasons as to costs and form of order in appeals from the granting of a Mareva injunction and Anton Piller order British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Malik, COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA appellants appeal from an order nisi with a three-month redemption period in respect of two mortgages taken by the Crown as security for advances to fund defence British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Malik, Court of Appea action l by the defendants from an order substantially dismissing their application to vary or set aside a Mareva injunction and an Anton Piller order obtained by the Crown NINE YEARS - R. v. Reyat, Inderjit Singh Reyat is before the court for sentencing on one count of perjury, having been found guilty of that offence by a jury on September 19, 2010. R. v. Malik and Bagri, application by the Crown, for an extension of the 30 day period to file a notice of appeal COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA R. v. Malik and Bagri, Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Josephson Reasons for Judgment R. v. Malik and Bagri, Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Josephson Reasons for Judgment (2) R. v. Malik and Bagri, Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Josephson Reasons for Judgment (3) R. v. Malik and Bagri, Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Josephson Reasons for Judgment (4) R. v. Malik and Bagri, Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Josephson Reasons for Judgment (5) R. v. Reyat, 200302, On this sentencing hearing, counsel representing Mr. Malik and Mr. Bagri apply to have certain of the agreed facts made subject to a ban R. v. Malik and Bagri, Application for a Permanent Publication Ban With Respect to A Witness’s Identity R. v. Reyat, 20080711, The Honourable Madam Justice Rowles allowing Mr. Reyat’s appeal and releasing him from custody pending his trial was delivered in this Court. R. v. Malik and Bagri, Ruling re: Destruction of C.S.I.S. Notes, Audiotapes and Transcripts There is a Publication Ban R. v. Reyat, 2010 BCSC 1623 R. v. Malik and Bagri, Ruling Re: Defence Application Regarding the Admissibility of Hardial Singh Johal’s Diary R. v. Malik and Bagri, Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Josephson Reasons for Judgment (6) Final Conclusion 'the evidence has fallen markedly short of that standard.' R. v. Malik and Bagri, Ruling re: Admissibility of Paul Deschryver’s Report R. v. Malik and Bagri, Ruling re: Application by Mr. Bagri for a declaration that his s. 7 Charter rights have been violated by late disclosure There is a Publication Ban In the Matter of an Application Under s. 83.28 Of the Criminal Code and Satnam Kaur Reyat Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Holmes Crown’s application under s. 83.28 of the Criminal Code for an order for an investigative hearing. R. v. Malik, Bagri and Reyat RULING RE BREACH OF MR. BAGRI'S RIGHTS UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE CHARTER R. v. Malik, Bagri and Reyat The Globe and Mail and Robert Matas (the “applicants”) apply for the following order: R. v. Malik, Bagri and Reyat Re: Erasure of Wiretap Recordings by C.S.I.S. R. v. Malik, Bagri & Reyat Crown applies to read in as evidence at trial the transcript of the testimony of three deceased witnesses who testified at the trial of Inderjit Singh Reyat in 1990 R. v. Malik, Bagri and Reyat Re: Co-conspirators Exception R. v. Malik, Bagri and Reyat Re: Application by Mr. Reyat for Disclosure of Charge Approval Documents R. v. Malik, Bagri and Reyat Re: Application by Mr. Reyat to Exclude Evidence Obtained Pursuant to Search Warrants R. v. Malik, Bagri and Reyat Re: Voluntariness of Mr. Reyat’s November 6, 1985 Statement to the R.C.M.P. R. v. Malik, Bagri and Reyat Re: Admissibility of Mr. Reyat’s November 6, 1985 Statement Pursuant to the Charter R. v. Malik, Bagri and Reyat There is a Publication Ban pursuant to s. 486(3) of the Criminal Code R. v. Malik and Bagri, There is a Publication Ban pursuant to s. 486(3) of the Criminal Code R. v. Malik and Bagri, Ruling re Crown Application to have Mr. Reyat Declared a Hostile Witness at Common Law HMTQ v. Malik, Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Stromberg-Stein Malik applies for Charter relief by way of a Rowbotham order in aid of his constitutional right to a fair trial R. v. Malik and Bagri, Crown Application Regarding the Admissibility of the Witness’s Statements There is a Publication Ban 9 February 1990 The Crown, in order to change the venue of trial from Vancouver to New Westminster, has prepared and filed a new indictment R. v. Bagri COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Associate Chief Justice Dohm denied Mr. Bagri's application for judicial interim release Date of Release: May 10, 1991 The indictment in this case contains eight counts. The first two are charges of manslaughter. The other six relate to the acquisition, possession and use of explosive substances Court of Appeal for British Columbia January 11, 12, 13 & 14, 1993 This is an appeal, and an application for Leave to Appeal, against the conviction of the Appellant R. v. Malik, Bagri and Reyat Mr. Bagri applies for directions regarding the scheduling of motions as directed in the order R. v. Malik, Bagri and Reyat Globe and Mail and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation apply for clarification of the nature and scope of the order of May 22, 2001 deferring publication of all information R. v. Malik, Bagri and Reyat Prior to embarking on a voir dire to determine the admissibility of evidence of the attempted murder of Tara Singh Hayer (the “Hayer voir dire”), Mr. Reyat seeks Orders: