Mike Duffy trial: Judge sides with defence on 2 issues

The Mike Duffy trial resumed today following a three-week breakwith the judge siding with the defence on two issues, including allowing into evidence a Senate report that containedthe findings ofan independent audit into senators' office and travel expenditures.

But the trial,which began on April 7 in the Ontario Court of Justice in Ottawa,was abruptly adjourned for the day. Arguments were supposed to be heardover whether details of a separate2013 internal Senate audit on the residency status of senators should beadmissible. Those arguments have now been postponed.

Earlier,JudgeCharlesVaillancourthad issued his ruling on the Senatereport thatincluded the findings of three audits that were carried out over the previous year by independent auditing firmErnstand Young.The Crown in the trial in Ottawahad argued that the report should be disallowed,claiming its conclusions are hearsay and that itmerely repeated or rubber stampedthe findingsofErnstandYoung,

• Analysis: More drama coming in case of suspended senator
• Mike Duffy trial: Following the trail of cheques
• Senate moves to keep internal report on residency secret
• Crown says Mike Duffy got $10K for speech, billed $3K for travel

But Duffy's lawyer, DonaldBayne,had argued the report was anexception to the hearsay rule and shouldbe admissible because it'sa public document it was made by public officials, intended to be a permanent record and accessible to the public meaning it has"inherent reliability."

Vaillancourtagreed withBaynethat the report meets the definition of public document, and that he didn'tfind admitting itwould result "in any issues of trial fairness."

Duffy has pleaded not guilty to 31 charges of fraud, breach of trust and bribery related to expenses he claimed as a senatorand later repaidwith money from the prime minister's former chief of staff,NigelWright.

Vaillancourtalso ruled that aseries of posts and comments associated withDuffy'sWikipediaentry andthat reportedly defamed the suspended senatorshould not be admitted as evidence.

The Crown had attempted to persuadeVaillancourtto add the documents to the official trial record due to concerns the contents had been inaccurately portrayed duringBayne'scross-examination of freelance journalist MarkBourrielast month.

Bayne, at the time, had suggested the comments about Duffy were so defamatory that "nobody deserves this kind of material on the public record."

Vallaincourtconcludedthat it was"not necessary" to enter them, as neitherthe Crown nor, for the most part, the defence referred to them. "At the end of the day, I considered them, at best, theatrical props,"Vaillancourtconclude.

The 23-day-old trialhas yet to hear from important witnesses, including other senators, Duffy's business associate GeraldDonohue, Wright and Duffy himself.

The casehad been slated for 41 days, but both the Crown and defence made it clear during the trial they would need more time. The second part of the trial is scheduled to end June 19, before resuming yet again at some undisclosed date.

• Duffy trial: Follow the live blog

Bribery charge

While the bribery charge has grabbed the most headlines, it has barely been mentioned.

Instead, Crown prosecutors Mark Holmes and Jason Neubauer spent the first 22 days slowly building their case, alleging Duffy committed fraud and breach of trust (a charge specific for parliamentarians) by willfully ignoring Senate rules and claiming expenses for services that served no parliamentary function.Court has heard from top Senate administrative officials who have,in painstaking detail, gone over those rules.

• Mike Duffy trial: Links to key documents

The Crown has also zeroed in ona series of Duffy's travel expenses they allege were claimed for partisan fundraisingevents. Some Conservative MPs have testified that Duffy, a popular draw,was asked to and agreed to participate in such political events.

Baynespent days cross-examining some Senate administrative officials, poring overSenate rules with those witnesses, arguing the regulations Duffy is accused of contravening were unclear and ambiguous.

Baynehas suggestedthat the expenses in question were all allowed under the rules laid out in Senateguidelines, and all legitimate part of parliamentary functions,

Baynehas defendedthe travel expenses,arguing theSenate administrative rulesexplicitlystatethat partisan activities are an essential part of a senator's duties, addingthatnowhere in those rules does it define the term "partisan."