The 17 alleged co-conspirators accused of plotting the G20 mayhem have struck a plea bargain with prosecutors that would see 11 defendants walk free and the other six face jail terms of less than two years, the Toronto Star has learned.

But the six pleading guilty under the deal would not be pleading to conspiracy, the crime with which they were initially charged. Instead, they would be pleading to the lesser crime of counselling to commit an indictable offence.

Recommended sentences under the plea deal are between six and 20 months.

The position now being taken by the Crown is “drastically different” from how the 17 were portrayed at bail hearings, said lawyer Howard Morton, whose client, Joanna Adamiak, will see her charges dropped as part of the deal.

“This was nothing more than an attempt to create a public image that these people are terrorists,” Morton said of the prosecution’s portrayal of the 17 activists and self-described anarchists.

“These people are anything but terrorists. I mean, I wonder if any of them would even survive anarchy.”

The six defendants pleading guilty have confirmed to the Star that they intend to appear in Finch Ave. court today and enter a joint submission with the Crown.

While the plea bargain could still collapse should one of the co-accused decide to back out, representatives for the group said all 17 remained committed as of press time Monday night. It is possible the judge could also reject the joint submission.

Among the six pleading guilty under the plea deal are the four arrested in pre-dawn raids hours before the G20 summit began on June 26, 2010: Alex Hundert, his then-partner Leah Henderson, Amanda Hiscocks and Peter Hopperton. Also pleading guilty under the deal are Erik Lankin and Adam Lewis, both members of the anarchist group AW@L (Anti-War at Laurier). They would enter guilty pleas to counselling to commit mischief over $5,000.

Under the plea bargain, Hundert and Hiscocks, members of the Southern Ontario Anarchist Resistance, would also plead guilty to the additional charge of counselling to obstruct police. If their recommended sentences are accepted by the judge, they will face the longest prison terms of 20 months.

They would likely receive some credit for time already served, however. Hundert has already spent five months in pre-trial custody and another five months under house arrest; Hiscocks was in jail for one month and under house arrest for nine.

The arrests of the so-called G20 ringleaders in June 2010 were the culmination of a year-long investigation by two undercover officers and eight different police services.

At the June 26, 2010, court appearance for Hundert, Hiscocks, Henderson and Hopperton, Crown attorney Vincent Paris told the court he was overwhelmed by the volume of evidence collected on the alleged co-conspirators.

Prior to a publication ban prohibiting media from reporting trial evidence, Paris said a plan for violence was put into place over a series of meetings leading up to the G20 in June 2010. He said the group planned on hitting targets such as city hall, Metro Hall, Goldman Sachs, The Bay and various consulates.

As Paris spoke in court during the G20 summit, black-clad vandals were smashing their way across downtown Toronto and he linked the four defendants with the “action . . . happening now.”

Any other evidence against the 17 already submitted in bail court or preliminary hearings remains under publication ban until the guilty pleas are made in court and the other charges withdrawn.

According to York University law professor Alan Young, a conspiracy case is often tough to prosecute because it requires proof of an overt agreement between people who may be loosely connected.

Of the 1,118 people arrested during the G20, more than 140 were charged with conspiracy, including the 17 described as ringleaders. If the plea bargain goes through, at least 112 of those conspiracy charges will have been dropped.

The preliminary hearing for the 17 alleged co-conspirators began Sept. 12, but was suspended about a week later so the group could enter talks about a plea deal.

The group has since been embroiled in painstaking negotiations, a complicated and delicate process involving hours of handwringing and discussion amongst the multiple co-accused and their respective lawyers.

In an interview with the Star¸ Hiscocks said she was initially vehemently opposed to striking any deals with the Crown. The 37-year-old longtime activist said she disapproves of plea bargaining because she considers it a prosecutorial tactic for eliciting guilty pleas.

But, in the end, Hiscocks agreed a plea deal promised the best possible outcome for the most people in the group, she said.

“The justice system being what it is, we decided that we weren’t going to see justice by going through to the end,” Hiscocks said. “We feel like the most good we’re going to get from the system, for the people in this group, is going to be through this plea.”

Hiscocks said she believes the charges against her were “politically motivated” and the group has already been punished by a justice system that is supposed to presume innocence until proven guilty.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Over the past 15 months, the co-accused have been living either in jail, under house arrest or subject to restrictive bail conditions preventing them from doing the community work they devote their lives to, she said.

Everyone has also been prohibited from participating in “demonstrations,” a word that has been broadly interpreted by the courts. In September 2010, Hundert was arrested for breaching this bail condition after participating in a panel discussion at Ryerson University.

“The bail conditions were absolutely ridiculous,” Morton said. “I’ve had clients charged with manslaughter that had conditions that weren’t this bad.”

Many of the 17 are also buckling under the emotional and financial strain of a legal battle being waged at a snail’s pace, according to Hiscocks.

She said people have lost their jobs as a result of the ongoing case and two of the 17 who stand to have their charges dropped under the deal were ineligible for legal aid and face an overall legal cost of $150,000 each. Another co-accused, who would see his charge withdrawn as a part of the deal, said he faced deportation if convicted.

According to Morton, the case was unlikely to go to trial until next September at the earliest, more than two years after the charges were first laid. Some defendants now expected to plead guilty under the plea bargain will likely be out of jail and moving on with their lives before the trial will have started.

Young, an expert on the plea bargaining process, said both sides, the Crown and defence, have incentives to strike a deal.

“The Crown might perceive there are some weaknesses in the case, the defence might have some concerns about the claims they want to make,” he said. “So, ultimately, law of probabilities (says) your best outcome is to go into court with a joint submission.”

Plea deals also pinch the ballooning costs of a trial, he added. Morton, a former Crown attorney, estimates the investigation and prosecution has already cost upwards of $5 million.

But even when people see their charges dropped as a result of a plea deal, that does not mean they go unpunished, Young added.

“The reality is that the Crown still is victorious in the sense that it achieves some punitive response without necessarily getting a court ruling,” he said. “And it’s a very unforgiving process. It doesn’t say sorry and it doesn’t compensate you for any hardship you suffered.”

Adamiak said she has already spent 20 days in jail and $50,000 defending herself against charges that would now be dropped under the deal. The 30-year-old York University student said she has depleted her savings to pay for her defence.

“It’s quite angering to know that the state cast a very wide net at the G20 and a lot of people had to go through a lot, not just myself,” she said. “To me, that’s part of the reason why taking a deal to end the process quickly is what made sense . . . because the process was the punishment.”

Adamiak admits there were points along the negotiation process where she felt strongly the trial should proceed.

Ultimately, it was more important to end the process quickly so she and the others could return to their political work as soon as possible, she said.

“The use of charges is a fear tactic. It’s to make us fear being part of particular organizations, to have particular ideologies,” she said. “But, if anything, it’s made me just much more eager to get back to the things we were fighting for before.”