Bail hearing for suspect

CRIME

March 16, 2010 Brantford Expositor

An Ohsweken-area man in custody facing weapons-trafficking charges will have to fight a bail hearing on Friday without a witness he had subpoenaed to give evidence he believes is important to his case.

In Ontario Superior Court in Brantford on Monday, Justice Peter Hambly quashed two subpoenas issued on Crown attorney, David King, which would have compelled him to appear at Friday's bail hearing for Herbert Donald Tripp, 53, of Ohsweken, and a later court proceeding on Nov. 2.

Tripp, 53, of Third Line Road just outside Ohsweken, was charged with firearms trafficking, unauthorized possession of a firearm and unauthorized possession of a firearm in a vehicle, in April 2009 following a major bust by Six Nations police and provincial weapons and drug enforcement officers that netted 30 charges against five suspects in connection with seized cash, 20 firearms and a large amount of marijuana.

Tripp, who goes by his Mohawk name "rahontsi," was released on bail briefly, but was later also charged with 27 new counts of firearm-related offences, including possession of prohibited firearms and tampering with the serial numbers of a firearm.

Although Tripp is not represented officially by counsel, Justin Griffin was with him in court Monday, acting as his agent commissioned by the Mohawk Nation.

Griffin, who now goes by his Mik'maq native name, "ah'seh hodeeheehon," argued against the Crown's action to quash the two subpoenas.

He said King could give evidence important to the defence's contention that the Six Nations police officers who carried out the bust and arrested Tripp were not operating under lawful authority because a prior agreement called the Six Nations Regional Police Services Agreement that governed the force and an overseeing police commission had expired in March 2004 and had not been renewed.

After an hour of arguments from both sides, Hambly agreed with the contention of Andrew Bell, a member of the Hamilton Crown Attorney's office that the defence had not proved a convincing case that King would be giving evidence important to the bail proceedings.