A jury in a Lethbridge courtroom has found the Coutts 3 guilty of mischief.On September 16, 2022, Alex Van Herk, Marco Van Huigenbos, and George Janzen were charged with mischief over $5,000 by the RCMP, who suggested the three were "key participants" of the Coutts blockade. On Tuesday, they were found guilty by jury at the Court of King's Bench in Lethbridge.In a post to Twitter ("X") after the verdict, Van Huigenbos posted, "A feeling of thankfulness and peace that comes from above. Our legal system may find me/us guilty, but the legality and morality of our country are no longer aligned. When you understand this, you will know why men and women were on Highway 4 from Jan 29th-Feb 15th."Prosecutor Steven Johnston, who had a police escort on the way to the trial, told the judge a 90-day wait for a pre-sentencing hearing was "optimistic". Justice Keith Yamauchi said they will meet in arraignment court on July 22.Prior to the verdict, Johnston told the jury that a video of the defendants repeatedly using pronouns "we", "us", and "our" regarding Coutts protesters showed they helped lead and control the demonstration. He said the defendants claimed to RCMP officers and the broader public that they would do certain actions (i.e. block the highway) and that this showed they were "counseling" others to commit criminal mischief.However, Michael Johnston, counsel for Alex Van Herk, said he was talking to his brother on what to do next at the protest. He said to say words like "we" were only "word games" by the prosecutor. He urged the jury not to judge all members equally. He pointed out that Van Herk and Janzen disagreed with whether to end or continue with the protests, given they expected a SWAT team to put down the protest.Janzen's defense counsel, Alan Honner of The Democracy Fund, reminded the jury that RCMP officers Mark Wielgosz and Greg Tulloch who liased with the Coutts protesters, testified as Crown witnesses that they did not observe clear evidence of the defendants being leaders of the protests. They did, however, testify to Janzen's "useful" and "compassionate" acts during the Coutts protest.Ryan Durran, Van Huigenbos's lawyer, reminded jurors that the government-imposed mandates being protested against at the Coutts demonstration have since been ended. He urged them to "send Marco home" and acquit his client.Yamauchi, a former defence attorney, told the jury that the criminality of the Coutts blockade wasn't in dispute because obstructing traffic on a public road without legitimate cause is unlawful. What's in question, the judge noted, is whether or not the Coutts Three defendants were guilty of having blocked the road with vehicles or anything else. What was indisputable was that at times between Jan. 29 and Feb. 15, 2022, Highway 1 to Coutts was blocked.Yamauchi also told the jury that saying or doing things that motivate others to commit mischief does not automatically amount to commission of the crime of counselling others to mischief. He said mischief is the wilful obstruction of the lawful use, enjoyment, or operation of property.The jury had a question about the crime of mischief, and asked if defendants must be found to have executed all four elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt in order to be found guilty of its commission. The judge said this was so.
A jury in a Lethbridge courtroom has found the Coutts 3 guilty of mischief.On September 16, 2022, Alex Van Herk, Marco Van Huigenbos, and George Janzen were charged with mischief over $5,000 by the RCMP, who suggested the three were "key participants" of the Coutts blockade. On Tuesday, they were found guilty by jury at the Court of King's Bench in Lethbridge.In a post to Twitter ("X") after the verdict, Van Huigenbos posted, "A feeling of thankfulness and peace that comes from above. Our legal system may find me/us guilty, but the legality and morality of our country are no longer aligned. When you understand this, you will know why men and women were on Highway 4 from Jan 29th-Feb 15th."Prosecutor Steven Johnston, who had a police escort on the way to the trial, told the judge a 90-day wait for a pre-sentencing hearing was "optimistic". Justice Keith Yamauchi said they will meet in arraignment court on July 22.Prior to the verdict, Johnston told the jury that a video of the defendants repeatedly using pronouns "we", "us", and "our" regarding Coutts protesters showed they helped lead and control the demonstration. He said the defendants claimed to RCMP officers and the broader public that they would do certain actions (i.e. block the highway) and that this showed they were "counseling" others to commit criminal mischief.However, Michael Johnston, counsel for Alex Van Herk, said he was talking to his brother on what to do next at the protest. He said to say words like "we" were only "word games" by the prosecutor. He urged the jury not to judge all members equally. He pointed out that Van Herk and Janzen disagreed with whether to end or continue with the protests, given they expected a SWAT team to put down the protest.Janzen's defense counsel, Alan Honner of The Democracy Fund, reminded the jury that RCMP officers Mark Wielgosz and Greg Tulloch who liased with the Coutts protesters, testified as Crown witnesses that they did not observe clear evidence of the defendants being leaders of the protests. They did, however, testify to Janzen's "useful" and "compassionate" acts during the Coutts protest.Ryan Durran, Van Huigenbos's lawyer, reminded jurors that the government-imposed mandates being protested against at the Coutts demonstration have since been ended. He urged them to "send Marco home" and acquit his client.Yamauchi, a former defence attorney, told the jury that the criminality of the Coutts blockade wasn't in dispute because obstructing traffic on a public road without legitimate cause is unlawful. What's in question, the judge noted, is whether or not the Coutts Three defendants were guilty of having blocked the road with vehicles or anything else. What was indisputable was that at times between Jan. 29 and Feb. 15, 2022, Highway 1 to Coutts was blocked.Yamauchi also told the jury that saying or doing things that motivate others to commit mischief does not automatically amount to commission of the crime of counselling others to mischief. He said mischief is the wilful obstruction of the lawful use, enjoyment, or operation of property.The jury had a question about the crime of mischief, and asked if defendants must be found to have executed all four elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt in order to be found guilty of its commission. The judge said this was so.
