Court ruling allows disposal of evidence from Robert Pickton case

The B.C. Supreme Court has made a significant ruling regarding the disposal of evidence linked to the infamous serial killer Robert Pickton. This decision, which grants the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) the authority to dispose of approximately 15,000 pieces of evidence collected from Pickton’s pig farm, has sparked a wave of reactions, particularly from the families of the victims.

Background on the Pickton case

Robert Pickton was convicted of the second-degree murder of six women, although he was initially charged with the first-degree murder of 27 women. His pig farm in Port Coquitlam became the center of a massive investigation that uncovered a chilling narrative of violence and loss. After Pickton’s death in May, the RCMP sought the court’s permission to dispose of the evidence, arguing that it was no longer needed for any ongoing investigations or criminal proceedings.

Legal implications of the ruling

The court’s ruling, issued online, allows the RCMP to proceed with applications to dispose of the evidence, including items that may belong to the victims. Justice Frits Verhoeven acknowledged that there are questions about the court’s jurisdiction over items that were not presented as exhibits during the trial. However, he emphasized that the court retains the authority to make decisions regarding the disposal of seized items, even if they were not used in the original trial.

Concerns from victims’ families

Families of the victims have expressed serious concerns about the potential destruction of evidence, especially since they are pursuing civil lawsuits against Pickton’s estate. Jason Gratl, the lawyer representing these families, stated that any concerns regarding the destruction of evidence are premature. He reassured that just because the RCMP is seeking to dispose of evidence does not guarantee that the court will grant such applications.

Gratl further noted that if the RCMP attempts to dispose of evidence that could be crucial for the civil cases, he would advocate for the families to take possession of that evidence. The court has agreed to allow some participation from the civil case plaintiffs in the disposal application process, ensuring that they are notified if any items of interest are identified for destruction.

The path forward

As the legal proceedings unfold, the families of the victims remain vigilant. The court’s decision has opened a complex dialogue about the balance between legal obligations and the rights of victims’ families to access evidence that could support their claims. With no date set for when the civil cases will be heard, the situation remains fluid, and the implications of this ruling will continue to resonate within the community.