party denies any allegation of wrongdoing, negligence or carelessness on the part of the Ministry of the Attorney-General. It acknowledges that the delay was due to "administrative mishaps in the Official Reporter's Office", but submits that responsibihty must nevertheless rest with Mr. Pinkney in that he failed to seek an order from the Court of Appeal requiring pro­ duction of the transcripts, as he was entitled to do under the Criminal Code and the Rules of the British Colum­ bia Supreme Court. after his arrest, Mr. Pinlcney made absolutely no mention of Kenya, smuggling activities or his attempt to verify information, but rather referred to the attempted extortions as a "business deal". The judge concluded that this ' 'can only be interpreted in this context as an ex­ change of the file for m o n e y " and that he could "put no other ra­ tional interpretation on this statement written by Pinkney himself . . . " . Furthermore, he indicated that additional evidence of Mr. Pinkney's intention could be found in various papers found in his apartment and largely in his handwriting. On these papers were writ­ ten specific ideas concerning threats, plans to pick up the money and other matters which Mr. Pinkney denied having considered. At the communicant's trial, the Crown showed that he had intended to extort money. T o this effect, the 7 May 1976 statement which Mr. Pinkney made to the police and the various papers found in his apartment were particularly decisive. In the face of such evidence, the defence of the accused failed. It is doubtful whether the alleged miss­ ing evidence would have been of any assistance to Mr. Pinkney. The trial judge was made aware, in the course of pleadings, of the smug­ gling activities of Mr. Pinkney's intended victims. He also accepted as a fact that Mr. Pinkney was in contact with a representative of the Kenyan Embassy in the United States and that he had sent and in­ tended to continue sending information to the Embassy. Part, if not all of the evidence which the communicant alleges to be missing was, therefore, available at the trial. Quite evidently, part of this evidence was not pertinent: evidence of crimes which might have been commit­ ted by other individuals in Canada or abroad does not assist Mr. Pinkney in proving that he had no intention of committing an of­ fence in Canada. The rest had some relevance to the accused defence but did not succeed in creating in the mind of the presiding judge a reasonable doubt as to the absence of criminal intent on the part of the accused. Considering the overwhelming proof of criminal intent ad­ duced by the Crown, this is not surprising. 16. In his reply of 22 December 1980, Mr. Pinkney's lawyer submits the following: (i) Missing evidence The following is a summary of evidence presented at Mr. Pinkney's trial: Mr. Pinkney was arrested by detectives and members of the Van­ couver City Police at his apartment in the city of Vancouver on 7 May 1976. Just prior to that arrest, Vancouver police detectives conducted a search of that apartment and seized a large number of documents and other items. Subsequent to Mr, Pinkney's arrest, two black brief­ cases belonging to him were seized as well by pohce from a bus depot locker. Mr. Pinkney testified that he had been in possession of a grey briefcase in addition to the two black briefcases prior to his arrest. The briefcase that he alleges contained the materials vital to his defence was one of the black briefcases seized from the bus depot locker. He testified further that only the grey briefcase and one of the black briefcases had ever been returned to him. Detective Hope testified that he took two black briefcases to the police station in Van­ couver, where the contents were cursorily examined. Detective Hope further testified that no hst of the contents of those briefcases was ever made, and also testified that while he did not personally recall seeing any grey briefcase at the apartment of Mr. Pinkney and that he did not himself seize such a briefcase, other members of the police were present at that apartment and may have seized such a briefcase. 13. The State party also relies on the consideration of the case by the Court of Appeal in dismissing the ap­ peal against conviction. The Court of Appeal had gone through the information and arguments about the allegedly missing evidence. It held in this respect that "if this matter had been as consequential as it is now sug­ gested it was, much more strenuous efforts would have been taken at every stage of the proceedings of trial to endeavour to resolve the issue of the missing brief-case" and that the information put before it was "altogether too vague to support the submissions now advanced on behalf of the applicant". The Government adds: "In other words, Mr. Pinkney was unable to convince the Court (of Appeal) that the allegedly missing evidence existed, that it had been withheld by the Crown and was in any way relevant." There was evidence led at trial that indicated that both of the black briefcases were at one point in time given into the custody of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, that the contents were photocopied by the R . C . M . P . , and that both briefcases were then returned to Vancouver City Police. There was as well testimony that other agencies had shown interest in the contents of those briefcases, including the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation, Canadian Immigration, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Subversive Section. While Vancouver police records indicated that both black briefcases had been turned over to Mr. Pinkney's lawyer acting at that time, Ms. Patricia Connors, Ms. Connors herself gave evidence at trial in­ dicating that she had recovered one grey briefcase and one black brief­ case, and that when she signed the police record indicating that she had picked up two black briefcases, she had not carefully examined it and had signçd it carelessly. Records from the Lower Mainland Regional Correctional Centre (Oakalla) the prison where Mr. Pinkney was detained pending his trial, indicated that one grey briefcase and one black briefcase were received by them for Mr. Pinkney. 14. The Government's view is that the facts show: (a) That in one form or another most if not ah of the allegedly missing evidence was put before the trial judge and found not to be relevant or pertinent; Ф) That the communicant failed to exercise due diligence in order to obtain the allegedly missing evidence, evidence which he described as vital to his case; (c) That he failed to exhaust all local remedies when he failed to ask the Supreme Court of Canada to grant him leave in order to ascertain whether in the present case there had occurred a breach of the rights to a full defence and to a fair hearing which are protected by the Criminal Code and the Canadian Bill of Rights. Mr. Pinkney testified of extensive attempts made by himself and by others on his behalf to recover the remaining black briefcase from the police, all of which were unsuccessful. He testified that these attempts commenced shortly after his arrest and well before his trial, and in­ cluded an attempt to obtain the briefcase by order of a provincial court judge at the time of Mr. Pinkney's preliminary hearing and an attempt to seek the assistance of the Federal Minister of Justice Basford via letter. The foregoing summary of evidence led at Mr. Pinkney's trial is substantiated by the transcripts of those proceedings. Those transcripts are in the possession of ourselves as well as of represen­ tatives of the Province of British Columbia. They comprise some nine volumes, and can be made available to the Committee if requested. This summary of evidence is submitted at this time in response to the rather minimal summary provided in the State party's submission at pages 7 and 8. In addition, it is clear that counsel for Mr. Pinkney at trial sought an adjournment of that trial sine die on the basis of the evidence adduced concerning the briefcases and their contents, on the 15. Concerning the issue of the length of the pro­ ceedings before the Court of Appeal due to the delay in the production of the transcripts of the trial, the State 97