A B.C. Supreme Court judge has rejected an application by one of the Surrey Six killers to stay the convictions against him.
Nearly 20 years after a gangland slaying that shocked the province, Justice Martha Devlin said Thursday that allegations of abuse of process levelled by Cody Haevischer against police and corrections officials did not rise to the level that would have seen her stay the case against him.
The judge’s decision resulted in six convictions for murder and one count of conspiracy to commit murder against Haevischer being officially entered into the judicial record — meaning the gangster must serve a life sentence for his crimes.
Haevischer — who was found guilty in the Surrey Six murders in 2014 — sought a stay of proceedings before the convictions could be entered, claiming police misconduct and his treatment behind bars amounted to an abuse of process.
He was asking for a stay of proceedings or a reduction in his sentence to 25 years, but after a lengthy consideration of all Haevischer’s allegations, Devlin rejected all but a handful of his claims, finding only that time in solitary confinement had breached the killer’s Charter rights.
“I have concluded that the vast majority of Mr. Haevischer’s allegations simply have no merit,” Devlin said at the conclusion of a lengthy reading of a 60-page summary of her findings.
“The remaining aspects of his applications which do rise to the level of an abuse of process do not satisfy the ‘clearest of cases,’ which must be met for a stay of proceedings.”
Devlin’s ruling follows a long and complicated legal history arising from the murders in October 2007.
Haevischer and co-accused Matthew Johnston were arrested and charged in the crimes in 2009. Prior to that, a third killer — known as Person X — pleaded guilty to three counts of second-degree murder and one count of conspiracy in relation to the killings.
In December 2014, Haevischer and Johnston were found guilty, but they applied for a stay of proceedings before their convictions were entered into the record.
The judge who initially found them guilty summarily dismissed the application — meaning she didn’t hold an evidentiary hearing — because the charges against them were so serious the killers weren’t going to be let go as a remedy for abuse of process.
But B.C.’s Court of Appeal overturned that decision, quashing the convictions. The appeal court ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada and the matter was set for an evidentiary hearing, which began in November 2024.
Johnston died in pretrial custody during the course of the proceedings.
Devlin’s ruling drew gasps from the public gallery, which was filled with victims’ family members, who later embraced outside the courtroom.
Eileen Mohan, whose son Christopher was one of two innocent victims, called the decision a “glorious verdict.”
“It gives us satisfaction that at least there’s justice for our loved ones, and the courts have spoken today,” Mohan said on the courthouse steps.
“I applaud her for not just giving me hope, but giving the people of British Columbia hope that you can’t just walk to the doorstep of my home, steal my innocent son’s life and expect to walk free from the courts.”
In her opening remarks, Devlin noted that nearly 20 years have passed since the Surrey Six murders shocked the province during what she called gang “warfare of an unprecedented scale.”
But even amid that violence, Devlin said “one notorious incident stands alone.”
More stories from Vancouver-South Coast
The Surrey Six murders occurred on Oct. 19, 2007, when Haevischer and other Red Scorpion gang members went to the apartment of drug dealer Corey Lal to kill him for failing to pay a “tax.”
But along with Lal, the killers encountered five other people, including two innocent victims: a 22-year-old who lived on the same floor and a repair man servicing fireplaces in the apartment building.
Devlin said the killers separated the six victims into two groups of three and shot them in the back and head.
Some of them had their heads covered, and police testified that they were in submissive positions.
No matter what proceedings have occurred in the years since, and despite his attempts to minimize his involvement, Devlin said the facts of the findings against Haevischer remain unchallenged.
“In a calculated and deliberate matter, he decided to murder all six victims and actively participated in their execution,” she said.
“Mr. Haevischer extinguished the lives of six defenceless men.”
The fundamental questions Devlin was facing were whether Haevischer’s allegations of police impropriety and his treatment in custody constituted an abuse of process that would undermine his right to a fair trial or bring the justice system into disrepute.
And even if an abuse of process existed, Devlin said she also had to consider whether it would be the “clearest of cases,” which deserved a remedy such as a stay of proceedings or a reduction in Haevischer’s sentence from life in prison to 25 years.
The allegations of abuse of process fell into two broad categories: police misconduct involving allegations that officers manipulated and engaged in sexual conduct with vulnerable witnesses; and claims related to Haevischer’s time in custody prior to and during his trial.
Devlin methodically assessed each incident of alleged police abuse, including sexual relationships between senior RCMP officers and female witnesses that resulted in disciplinary proceedings and criminal charges against the officers.
But in those cases, Devlin said there was no evidence that the events occurred with the approval of the RCMP. If anything, she said, the officers involved were aware that their actions could imperil the case.
She also said Haevischer’s allegations of witness manipulation failed to take into account the bravery of female witnesses — including former girlfriends of gang members — who gave evidence in spite of great personal risk.
Devlin accepted the fact that Haevischer’s time in segregation in the year after his arrest, combined with limits on his interactions with other human beings, amounted to a level of solitary confinement that breached his Charter right to life, liberty and security of the person.
But she rejected the notion that B.C. Corrections officials had acted at the behest of police in order to put pressure on Haevischer.
Devlin said it was understandable that pretrial staff would worry about the impact of the arrival of a high-profile gang member into a prison population filled with members of rival gangs.
She said there were also legitimate concerns about Haevischer’s potential to manipulate other inmates, and that while his treatment would not be acceptable by today’s standards, it was accepted at the time.
The judge also questioned Haevischer’s claims that the anxiety he suffers today is solely due to his treatment behind bars, noting that he failed to account for the effects of threats to his life through gang conflict, the prospect of a high-stakes trial and a child custody battle.
At the conclusion of her ruling, Devlin entered the convictions against Haevischer into the record. He also faces sentencing for a contempt of court conviction for refusing to give evidence during the proceedings, citing a supposed “inmate code.”
