{"id":211387,"date":"2019-01-14T21:19:43","date_gmt":"2019-01-15T05:19:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/chinadigitaltimes.net\/?p=211387"},"modified":"2021-09-14T20:23:41","modified_gmt":"2021-09-15T03:23:41","slug":"canadian-sentenced-to-death-in-drug-smuggling-retrial","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/chinadigitaltimes.net\/2019\/01\/canadian-sentenced-to-death-in-drug-smuggling-retrial\/","title":{"rendered":"Canadian Sentenced to Death in Drug Smuggling Retrial"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Dalian Intermediate People’s Court<\/a> in Liaoning province sentenced Canadian Robert Lloyd Schellenberg to death on Monday during a one-day retrial on drug smuggling charges<\/strong><\/a>. Schellenberg has been detained in China since 2014. His trial began in 2016 and he was sentenced to 15 years in prison on November 20th of last year.\u00a0He was given a public hearing in December after lodging an appeal against the conviction<\/a>. The Liaoning High Court ordered the case retried in late December after prosecutors said the sentence was too light. The decision is expected to further deepen diplomatic tensions between Beijing and Ottawa over the\u00a0arrest of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou<\/a>\u00a0and the subsequent arbitrary detention of\u00a0Canadian nationals Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, who are\u00a0held in China on suspicion of endangering state security<\/a>. Chris Buckley at The New York Times reports:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe evidence is compelling and ample, and the criminal charges are well founded,\u201d the Dalian Intermediate People\u2019s Court said of Mr. Schellenberg\u2019s death sentence, according to an official account published online. \u201cSchellenberg was a principal culprit.\u201d<\/p>\n

[…] At the trial on Monday, the prosecutors and judges laid out an account of a failed drug-smuggling operation starkly at odds with Mr. Schellenberg\u2019s testimony.<\/p>\n

He had told the court that he was a \u201ctourist visiting China and framed by criminals,\u201d China\u2019s central television broadcaster said in an online report.<\/p>\n

But the court saw Mr. Schellenberg as a skilled participant in the smuggling scheme, which involved trying to ship nearly 500 pounds of methamphetamines to Australia in pellets stuffed inside tires.<\/p>\n

The court report said Mr. Schellenberg had assessed the equipment for the planned crime \u2014 including tires, tubes and containers \u2014 and suggested delaying the drug shipment to allow for more preparation. [Source<\/strong><\/a>]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Prosecutors summoned a witness named Xu Qing to testify against the Canadian<\/strong><\/a>, using it as evidence to accuse Schellenberg of playing a key role in the drug-smuggling network. Schellenberg has maintained his innocence throughout and said he was made an unsuspecting participant by Xu. From Eva Dou at The Wall Street Journal:<\/p>\n

Mr. Xu\u2019s testimony Monday was his first appearance in any of the proceedings for Mr. Schellenberg since the latter\u2019s arrest four years ago, and the prosecutors\u2019 case hinged on it.<\/p>\n

In their testimonies, Messrs. Schellenberg and Xu agreed that they went together to buy industrial tools, which each denied knowing were for drug-repackaging, along with tires and to visit the warehouse. Both said they didn\u2019t know that methamphetamines hidden inside bags of plastic pellets were stored at the warehouse. Each claimed he went along because the other asked him to. Each said the other was working under the direction of a man named Khamla Wong, who was arrested in Thailand in 2016 for alleged drug smuggling.<\/p>\n

[…] Under Chinese law, a defendant cannot receive a heavier sentence upon appeal, unless the prosecution brings new charges, according to legal experts. Prosecutors on Monday changed their original charge that Mr. Schellenberg was an accessory to drug smuggling and instead charged him with having been a key participant in an international smuggling ring.<\/p>\n

The most concrete new evidence submitted to try to prove his membership in an international smuggling ring was a log of a phone call placed from his phone to a person, Mai Qingxiang, who was later convicted of drug smuggling. Mr. Schellenberg, who doesn\u2019t speak Chinese, said that he didn\u2019t know Mr. Mai and that the call was made by Mr. Xu, borrowing his phone. [Source<\/strong><\/a>]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau\u00a0accused China of “arbitrarily” applying the death penalty<\/strong><\/a>, saying that the sentence was of “extreme concern” to the government and vowing that his administration would “intercede” in Schellenberg’s case. Sarah Zheng at South China Morning Post reports:<\/p>\n

In Ottawa, Trudeau said: \u201cIt is of extreme concern to us as a government, as it should be to all our international friends and allies, that China has chosen to begin to arbitrarily apply\u2019\u2019 the death penalty.<\/p>\n

He said his government had vowed to intercede whenever a Canadian faced the death penalty, \u201cas we have in this case\u201d.<\/p>\n

Trudeau said China had taken a \u201cchoice not to respect long-standing practices and principles in regards to diplomatic immunity\u201d, an apparent reference to Kovrig\u2019s status.[Source<\/strong><\/a>]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\n

Here is the full quote from Trudeau: “It is of extreme concern to us as a govt\u2014as it should be to all our intl friends and allies\u2014that China has chosen to begin to arbitrarily apply a death penalty” https:\/\/t.co\/lLjO1nEGI4<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2014 Emily Rauhala (@emilyrauhala) January 14, 2019<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Legal experts have called the hasty retrial an attempt by China to gain leverage over Canada and put pressure on the Canadian government<\/strong><\/a> over the arrest of Meng Wanzhou.\u00a0Schellenberg\u2019s family had also voiced fears before the retrial that Schellenberg would become a bargaining chip for Beijing<\/a>. From AFP:<\/p>\n

Court retrials were rare, said Donald Clarke, a professor at George Washington University specialising in Chinese law, and even rarer were retrials calling for a harsher sentence.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt is obvious \u2026 that Schellenberg\u2019s fate will have little to do with his actual guilt or innocence,\u201d Clarke said.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf the Chinese government has an innocent explanation for all the unusual features of this case, I hope it will provide it \u2013 otherwise, I don\u2019t know how to understand this case other than as a simple threat.\u201d [Source<\/strong><\/a>]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

At Lawfare, Donald Clarke goes into greater depth on his take on the Schellenberg case and how there are “several unusual features” that point to its connection with Meng Wanzhou’s extradition<\/strong><\/a>.<\/p>\n

1. Extraordinary delay in trial and sentencing. The original trial was on March 15, 2016. Given that Schellenberg was detained more than a year earlier, on Dec. 3, 2014, that already represents an unusual delay in China\u2019s usually speedy criminal procedure system.[…]<\/p>\n

[…] 2. The decision to send back for retrial. The outcome of the appeal (announced after only twenty minutes of deliberations, suggesting that it was decided in advance) is very unusual. The court, instead of deciding the appeal one way or the other by itself, sent the case back down to the original trial court for a re-trial (chongshen \u91cd\u5ba1). […]<\/p>\n

[…] 3. Extraordinary speed in scheduling the retrial. Schellenberg\u2019s retrial has been scheduled for Jan. 14, a mere 16 days after the appeal decision. This is barely time for the minimum 10 days\u2019 notice of trial required by China\u2019s Criminal Procedure Law (Art. 187), and it is not clear that notice was in fact provided on or before Jan. 4 as required.[…]<\/p>\n

[…] 4. Why invite the international press? China\u2019s State Council Information Office laid on a special trip to Dalian for the international press to observe the appeal hearing. […] [Source<\/strong><\/a>]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Clarke commented further on Twitter:<\/p>\n

\n

The appeal (\u4e0a\u8bc9) process has time limits. But there are no time limits on Supreme People’s Court review (\u590d\u6838). Thus, it’s at the SPC review stage that the government can drag the process out indefinitely while negotiating over whether they will kill S or not.<\/p>\n

\u2014 Donald Clarke (@donaldcclarke) January 14, 2019<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\n

As Don noted, first there would be the standard appeal, and then (presuming that the sentence is upheld on appeal), a final review by the SPC (just sent separate reply with relevant provision in the CPL)<\/p>\n

\u2014 Maggie Lewis \u9678\u6885\u5409 (@MargaretKLewis) January 14, 2019<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Lewis told CTV News on Monday that from this point on, through the appeal, Supreme People’s Court review, and possible execution, “the timing is really whatever Beijing wants it to be. The Chinese government is in the driver’s seat.”<\/p>\n

\n

My thoughts this evening on @CTVNews<\/a> regarding #China<\/a>'s decision to sentence Canadian-citizen #Schellenberg<\/a> to the death penalty:https:\/\/t.co\/j8ZoTo4Ri2<\/a><\/p>\n

— Maggie Lewis \u9678\u6885\u5409 (@MargaretKLewis) January 15, 2019<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n