Judge issues a reason to reject new evidence in Meng Wanzhou’s delivery case


Vancouver — A judge in the British Columbia Supreme Court has stated that he will not allow the new evidence proposed in the Meng Wanzhou surrender case. This is because the US proceedings against her do not “explicitly” support Huawei’s executive claim that it is “obviously unreliable.”

Deputy Judge Heather Holmes decided not to admit evidence on July 9, but the reason for her decision was not announced until Wednesday.

Men are being sought in the United States for allegedly misleading HSBC about Huawei’s relationship with other companies and putting banks at risk of violating US sanctions against Iran.

Meng’s legal team claimed that the document undermined Meng’s allegations of fraud and proved that the United States had misunderstood the court in a summary of the proceedings against her to Canada.

Documents recently obtained by Meng’s legal team from HSBC through a Hong Kong court agreement include an internal email chain and spreadsheet.

Holmes said in a ruling that the document was “definitely valuable to Meng in court” but did not explicitly state Meng’s conclusions that could only be reached by reasoning.

“It is only the inferences from the document that support these facts and conclusions, and they are not the only rational inferences that the document supports,” Holmes wrote in the judgment.

The document also cannot show that the reasoning made by the United States was unreasonable in summarizing Meng’s allegations, she says.

Holmes says it is the jurisdiction of the trial, not the trial of delivery, to weigh competing inferences.

“Potential competing reasoning may or may not play an important role in a trial where witnesses testify, cross-examine, and the body of evidence becomes much more complete,” she writes.

“In the context of a hand-over hearing, it is not possible to determine the true or most appropriate reasoning.”

The final two- to three-week hearing of Meng’s hand-over case is scheduled to begin on August 3.