Lawyers Protect Lawyers - again

[Argus]

Not unexpectabedly, the lawyers of the Supreme Court came down on the side of - lawyers in a case heard today. They decided that no matter how incomptetant, stupid and lazy a Crown prosecutor is, no matter how many lives he ruis and how absurd his prosecution was, well, he's still a lawyer, and it's not up to mere mortals to every punish him for wrongdoing. Lawyers, after all, can do no wrong.

The case involved an incompetent Crown who prosecuted a couple for sexual abuse, despite the allegations being so absurd no reasonable person would believe them. There was no corroborating evidence or testimony, but he hounded these people and by the Supremes' own statement, no likelihood of a succesful prosecution.

I like the statement of the Crown attorney in this case (not the original idiot, another idiot)

“The Supreme Court has set a very high threshold,” he said in an interview. “There now has to be almost a deliberate fraud on the administration of justice. Those are pretty strong words. In the future, the Crown's discretion will certainly be protected against cases that are without merit.

It's so good he's protected against proceding on cases that are without merit. I know I'm relieved.

[The Globe]

Yet another reason why we need an independant board to sit in judgement on the behaviour and competence of lawyers and judges. Clearly, the legal industry is incapable of policing its own.

[ToadBrother]

Um, I thought the judgement was pretty specific. Basically the plaintiffs argued that the Crown Prosecutor was guilty of malicious prosecution. Maliciousness goes to intent, and you have to be able to prove that the Prosecutor was malicious, not just incompetent.

Intent is of key importance in the law. Think of it this way. Some guy hits you in the head with a hammer. What precisely he will be charged with is completely dependent on circumstance. If he just was wildly swinging his hammer around in a careless manner, then there was no specific intent to hurt you, so you can't claim assault with intent, attempted murder or any charges of that nature. If he was intentionally trying to smash in your skull, and you can demonstrate that, then you've got intent.

Clearly the Prosecutor in question didn't do his due diligence and people suffered. What the Supreme Court is saying is that a lower court judged erred in ruling that the Prosecutor willfully and maliciously went after them in the first place. He may be an idiot, an incompetent, and so on, but what they did not adequately prove was that his intention was the destruction of their reputation.

[Alta4ever]

and so on, but what they did not adequately prove was that his intention was the destruction of their reputation.

So what it was the result of the action, and he should be punished for it.

[Argus]

Clearly the Prosecutor in question didn't do his due diligence and people suffered. What the Supreme Court is saying is that a lower court judged erred in ruling that the Prosecutor willfully and maliciously went after them in the first place. He may be an idiot, an incompetent, and so on, but what they did not adequately prove was that his intention was the destruction of their reputation.

And where is the punishment for being an idiot and an incompetent? The answer is, of course, that there is none. And you can't even sue him unless you can prove malicious intent. You think it's an accident this was set up this way? By lawyers?

If an account is an incompetent moron and screws up your finances you can sue him. In fact, there are all sorts of remedies available for accountants who screw up, and they certainly aren't left to police themselves.

For that matter, the police aren't left to police themselves.

So why do we let a professional group who we know is mostly made up of people solely pursuing profit and wealth police its own members when they are clearly more than willing to act out of self interest?

[Smallc]

So why do we let a professional group

Instead, a bunch of people who know nothing about the law or justice decide. The world of Argus must be an interesting place. The reality is, the judges should want to make the right decision because their reputations in the legal world depend on it. If a lawyer is doing wrong, they make all lawyers look bad. They should be punished...if they do wrong. Obviously, there wasn't enough of a case here.

I find it so interesting that people like you find yourselves more qualified than the Supreme Court to decide things like this. It's sheer arrogance...and madness.

[kimmy]

For that matter, the police aren't left to police themselves.

For the most part, they actually do. The Braidwood inquiry is an exception, of course, but even in that incident the goons responsible had already been cleared of wrongdoing and put back on active duty by the RCMP's own internal whitewash rubber-stamp thingy.

I do agree with the basics of what you're saying. This prosecutor pursued a case that appears to have had no merit, and people suffered as a result. There ought to be consequences for that sort of incompetence, and compensation to those whose lives were harmed as a result of it.

However, I think that prosecutors must have a certain amount of leeway to pursue cases, and some amount of protection if a prosecution is unsuccessful. If prosecutors didn't have some amount of protection and could be sued each time somebody got acquitted, the result would be that they would only pursue cases they knew were slam-dunks. I do not think it would be in society's best interest to have crown prosecutors who were afraid to pursue convictions in anything but the easiest of cases. I think that would be terrible. There has to be some sort of balance.

In this instance, I can't help thinking that the prosecutor's motivation for pursuing these ludicrous allegations is that he thought the sensationalistic nature of the case would advance his career... which is one of the examples of reasons why malicious prosecution charges could still be made to stick.

-k

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Does this mean that some folks will now agree that we could be better off with an accountable judicial system? Elect the judges to do the right thing and fire the judges for doing the wrong thing!

[Smallc]

What is right or wrong for you may not be for others. Electing judges...especially those who have the highest decision making ability in the land, in a bad idea. Partisan politics (something you claim to dislike) shouldn't be part of the judicial system.

[Argus]

Instead, a bunch of people who know nothing about the law or justice decide.

Could you please enlighten me as to which part of legal training teaches "justice" to the would-be lawyer?

Because my impression is that justice has no part to play in legal proceedings. It's strictly a matter of remembering and then interpreting words and phrases written on a piece of paper.

I'm not suggesting laymen should interpet fine points of law. However, they can certainly determine when a lawyer has cheated his client by overbilling, by billing for services not made, by falsifying information and lying to people, by deliberately misstating law and twisting it out of all recognition. And they certainly can determine that when a Crown prosecutes someone with =NO= evidence, none, other than the wildly improbable, if not downright ludicrous testimony of children that this is not a man fit to prosecute anyone ever again.

The world of Argus must be an interesting place.

It's a world where you don't blindly accept the authority of agencies, boards, governments or anyone else without engaging your brain to determine the wisdom of justice of their decisions. I know a world like that would terrify someone so accustomated to ceding all authority to anyone with a title, but take an anxiety pill or two and give it some consideration.

I find it so interesting that people like you find yourselves more qualified than the Supreme Court to decide things like this. It's sheer arrogance...and madness.

Because, after all, they have TITLES, and that makes them right all the time. Never mind that the route to getting that big shiny title is that some politician owed someone a favor, or that he wanted to put on some hack who he felt would share his political views and agenda.

I'll make a guess right now. Of the top fifty legal minds in this country, NONE is a judge nor ever will be.

Judges are not appointed because of their legal knowledge. They're appointed because of their social/political views, because of who they know, because of the parties they attend, the money they donate to political parties, and their geographic, ethnic, and linguistic handiness.

[Argus]

What is right or wrong for you may not be for others. Electing judges...especially those who have the highest decision making ability in the land, in a bad idea. Partisan politics (something you claim to dislike) shouldn't be part of the judicial system.

Partisan politics has, for the most part, been responsible for the appointment of almost every judge the Supreme Court has ever seen.

[Smallc]

Partisan politics has, for the most part, been responsible for the appointment of almost every judge the Supreme Court has ever seen.

They don't ever have to worry about their decisions being unpopular. They only have to worry about the law, the Constitution, and the Bar.

[Argus]

For the most part, they actually do. The Braidwood inquiry is an exception, of course, but even in that incident the goons responsible had already been cleared of wrongdoing and put back on active duty by the RCMP's own internal whitewash rubber-stamp thingy.

The RCMP is an exception, and on the way to losing their exemption from outside investigations due to their lack of honour and integrity in pursueing their own.

According to my newspaper an Ottawa police car racing to the scene of a stabbing hit a bystander, sending him to hospital. There were, according to the paper, four investigators from the civilian body which investigates police on the scene to determine if the police involved acted properly or not.

There are few places in Canada where police investigate their own any more.

I do agree with the basics of what you're saying. This prosecutor pursued a case that appears to have had no merit, and people suffered as a result. There ought to be consequences for that sort of incompetence, and compensation to those whose lives were harmed as a result of it.

But won't be, wasn't, because of the way the law is written. And I submit it was written in such a way as to limiit oversight, and now interpreted to cause even less oversight.

However, I think that prosecutors must have a certain amount of leeway to pursue cases, and some amount of protection if a prosecution is unsuccessful.

I'm not suggesting otherwise. But should they be free to charge and pursue cases where there is so little evidence and the testimony is so absurd even a judge says the case never had a whisker of a prayer of gaining a conviction? Should they have the freedom to charge Kimmy with murdering goats in Newfoundland, even though she'd never been to Newfoundland, simply because some clown on the internet said he remembers her saying bad things about goats?

Fact is, law is a profesison in which few of its employees feel any particular calling. Most people become lawyers to make money, not to right wrongs or help people. In that sense I trust they to act in other people's best interests ahead of their own as much as I trust stock brokers and corporate financiers.

[Smallc]

Could you please enlighten me as to which part of legal training teaches "justice" to the would-be lawyer?

I haven't gone through legal training, so I'm not really qualified to say.

Because my impression is that justice has no part to play in legal proceedings. It's strictly a matter of remembering and then interpreting words and phrases written on a piece of paper.

That's your interpretation, which is utterly irrelevant.

I'm not suggesting laymen should interpet fine points of law. However, they can certainly determine when a lawyer has cheated his client by overbilling, by billing for services not made, by falsifying information and lying to people, by deliberately misstating law and twisting it out of all recognition.

Can they? I certainly doubt it. People are fickle, and generally uninformed.

It's a world where you don't blindly accept the authority of agencies, boards, governments or anyone else without engaging your brain to determine the wisdom of justice of their decisions.

Doer their decision reflect what is legally right? It's not their place to go outside of the boundaries of the law, unless the law is in conflict with the Constitution. If we don't like the law as a society, we can certainly change it, but that's not what we're talking about here. Have the justices made a decision that our society, through it's laws, has deeme to be right? It seems so. You odn't like it, but again, that's irrelevant.

Because, after all, they have TITLES, and that makes them right all the time.

Certainly not, but I trust them a great deal more than you when it comes to matters like this.

I'll make a guess right now. Of the top fifty legal minds in this country, NONE is a judge nor ever will be.

A guess....another things irrelevant to the topic.

Judges are not appointed because of their legal knowledge. They're appointed because of their social/political views, because of who they know, because of the parties they attend, the money they donate to political parties, and their geographic, ethnic, and linguistic handiness.

And an opinion...yet more irrelevance. You aren't always right. You don't get to decide everything. Society has set up institutions to deal with cases like this. I you don't like them, you're free to try and change them....if you can get society to ahree with you.

[Alex Moore]

wow Argus you've said incompetent and idiot so many times in this debate that I don't know if its an insult or a common adjective anymore.

You fail to appreciate what this situation is. Anytime criminal case goes to court without 100% certainty. There is almost always a subsequent civil suit on behalf of the defendants against the prosecuting lawyers for malicious conduct (Scientology is famous for this see Hill v Church of Scientology). It would be great If prosecutors always went to court with absolute certainty. But the very fact that they are in court usually means there isn't absolute certainty in the case (especially for sexual abuse cases). so by your standard that lawyers shouldn't go to trial unless they have absolute empirically tested evidence that create 100%certainty of a conviction. It would mean that lawyers couldn't do their job. In order to do their jobs lawyers need to be protected against these lawsuits except of course in cases where its clear that lawyers where going beyond the scope of their job and either using there position to personally attack the defendant or to advance their career. which is unless I read wrong the standard that the supreme court set.