As the criminal trial begins for three men accused of playing key roles in an Alberta blockade two years ago, defence lawyers argued that the protest was “disorganized” and no one had the power to call the shots, while the Crown said the men had control over the group.
“You couldn’t tell us who actually was responsible for the trucks coming down on the 29 (of January),” defence lawyer Michael Johnston asked former Coutts Mayor Jim Willett during cross-examination on April 4.
“I could not,” Mr. Willett replied.
“It seems like a rather disorganized protest, still, on Feb. 2. Is that fair?” said Mr. Johnston.
“Probably, yeah,” Mr. Willett said.
The protestors left the town voluntarily on Feb. 14 after the RCMP uncovered numerous firearms at the protest site and arrested 14 people. Protestors said they didn’t want to be associated with the arrests and wanted to remain “peaceful.”
At the outset of the three men’s trial on April 3, a Crown prosecutor said the proceeding had nothing to do with their beliefs or right to protest. Prosecutor Steven Johnston said the men had interfered with the use of a highway for two weeks, adding they had the final say over what happened during the protest.
Mr. Johnston showed the court a video of Mr. Van Huigenbos speaking toward the end of the trial, where he said the Coutts convoy had decided, “as a peaceful protest and to maintain that narrative, we will be rolling out tomorrow morning.”
Former Coutts Mayor Testifies
Mr. Willet, the first witness in the trial, testified the highway blocked during the protest was a major route for hundreds of millions of dollars of commerce. “This highway is a major commerce thoroughfare. If you shut that down, you shut down all the commerce,” he said.Mr. Willet also said that during the protest he was concerned about the impact on residents’ access to grocery stores and medical clinics outside the village of about 200, since it does not have those services.
During cross-examination the following day, Mr. Willet was asked about his meeting with Mr. Van Herk during the protest, and said the man looked “fairly frustrated.” When asked if he had the impression that Mr. Van Herk was trying to direct some “order in the chaos” and get protesters to leave, he answered in the affirmative.
A video was played showing the protestors’ gathering spot at a local salloon, where Mr. Van Herk was seen trying to get together a vote on whether the protestors would leave. He is met with vocal opposition.
After watching the video, Mr. Willet agreed with the defence lawyer that the protest seemed like it was made of various groups and not one singular group.
The trial for the three men is scheduled to run through April 19.
