Well, I basically agree with you that it was odd for the court to instruct BC to respond to the petition, for the reasons you give. However, as the court denied the petition, I think this is just a small footnote.

I could not understand why BC would be invited to respond or would want to. The separate issues that concerned the court and BC did not appear to be overlapping. What’s it to BC at this stage what the powers of the judiciary vis a vis the executive in repect of MLAT subpoena may be? It is hardly going to affect it one way or the other. If the panel had some interest in the Government’s argument BC is hardly the party to satisfy its curiosity. I imagine a body like the ACLU might have been more fit for purpose in this type of legal maze. Am I right or have I missed something?