Like "Honest Lawyer" is "Independent Counsel" an oxymoron?
Good Day Readers:
We'd like to thank Ms Blatchford for being the inspiration for our quiz. Remember, like a university philosophy or public servant exam there are no correct answers only answers. Are you ready?
(1) If you had nude compromising pictures taken of you, or perhaps a sex tape (Heaven forbid!), do you think you should bear any responsibility for maintaining complete care, power and control of these images at all material times?
(2) Our legal system is based on an adversarial approach. By natural extension so too is a Canadian Judicial Council Public Inquiry. If you were in need of a defence lawyer who would you choose:
(a) A candidate who promised to present your case to a judge and jury in a completely impartial, neutral and independent way?
(b) The candidate who promised by the time they'd finished the judge and jury would believe you were the second coming of Mother Teresa?
(3) If you had to hire a Crown Prosecutor who would you select?
(a) The candidate who if convinced of guilt would do everything always acting within the precept of the law to secure a conviction?
(b) A candidate who would undertake to always present all evidence independently giving everything equal weight?
(4) Why do you think the CJC will not release the content of Mr. Pratte's resignation letter?
(5) Why do you think Mr. Pratte will not release the content of his resignation letter?
(6) Who do you think should be the next Independent Counsel?
Times up! How did you do?
Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk
Christie Blatchford: Lawyer quits nude judge inquiry
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Guy Pratte resigned from a Canadian Judicial Council hearing examining the conduct of a senior Manitoba judge (David Lipnowski for National Post)
We'd like to thank Ms Blatchford for being the inspiration for our quiz. Remember, like a university philosophy or public servant exam there are no correct answers only answers. Are you ready?
(1) If you had nude compromising pictures taken of you, or perhaps a sex tape (Heaven forbid!), do you think you should bear any responsibility for maintaining complete care, power and control of these images at all material times?
(2) Our legal system is based on an adversarial approach. By natural extension so too is a Canadian Judicial Council Public Inquiry. If you were in need of a defence lawyer who would you choose:
(a) A candidate who promised to present your case to a judge and jury in a completely impartial, neutral and independent way?
(b) The candidate who promised by the time they'd finished the judge and jury would believe you were the second coming of Mother Teresa?
(3) If you had to hire a Crown Prosecutor who would you select?
(a) The candidate who if convinced of guilt would do everything always acting within the precept of the law to secure a conviction?
(b) A candidate who would undertake to always present all evidence independently giving everything equal weight?
(4) Why do you think the CJC will not release the content of Mr. Pratte's resignation letter?
(5) Why do you think Mr. Pratte will not release the content of his resignation letter?
(6) Who do you think should be the next Independent Counsel?
Times up! How did you do?
Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
In an astonishing development, lawyer Guy Pratte has resigned from a Canadian
Judicial Council hearing examining the conduct of a senior Manitoba judge.
The abrupt move comes exactly a week after Mr. Pratte, who was the inquiry’s so-called “independent counsel,” sought to have inquiry decisions overturned by filing for judicial review at the Federal Court of Canada.
In that application, Mr. Pratte asked the high court to set aside aggressive questioning by the inquiry panel’s own counsel, George Macintosh, and for an order that he not grill any future witnesses.
It was a bold and unprecedented step Mr. Pratte took last week, the first time in the history of the CJC that an independent counsel has so challenged the decisions and authority of an inquiry panel.
Why he would, on the heels of taking that unusual move, suddenly resign remains unexplained.
The CJC released a statement Monday saying only that he had “tendered his resignation” and that the council had “accepted the resignation.” Asked in an email if he was able and willing to talk about it, Mr. Pratte replied, “Unfortunately not.”
And when Postmedia asked for a copy of his letter of resignation, CJC executive director Norman Sabourin replied that it was “a private document.”
Mr. Sabourin pointed out that Mr. Pratte offered his resignation letter not to the committee, but rather to the full CJC. He was appointed by the vice-chair of the judicial conduct committee of the CJC, Chief Justice Neil Wittmann of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, who also appointed the three judges on the hearing panel.
The panel of five — two lawyers round out the numbers — is hearing four allegations against Manitoba Associate Chief Justice Lori Douglas.
At the heart of that case is the allegation that in 2003, when she was a practising lawyer, she participated in the sexual harassment of a black man named Alex Chapman, whose divorce her husband, lawyer Jack King, was handling.
Judge Douglas, who hasn’t yet testified at the hearing, has denied knowing anything about what her husband was doing then — posting intimate and private pictures of her on an XXX-rated website and encouraging Mr. Chapman to join the couple in a threesome.
But Mr. King did testify late last month, as did Michael Sinclair, a former law partner of both Mr. King and Ms. Douglas, as she then was.
The sum of their evidence, uncontradicted when the hearing stopped, was that Ms. Douglas was completely in the dark about her husband’s activities.
It was, in short, evidence that could be considered favourable to the judge.
And it’s that issue — the duty of independent counsel, as Mr. Pratte saw it, to present all the evidence in the case, whether good or not for Judge Douglas — which has been at the heart of his ongoing battle with the panel.
Behind the scenes, Mr. Pratte has been wrestling for months with his duty as he sees it — as a prosecutor bound to marshal all the evidence for and against an accused person — and his duty as the panel saw it.
In May, he was so disturbed by a panel ruling — it would have limited him to presenting only the “strongest case possible” against Judge Douglas — that he threatened to quit.
The panel then confirmed that he was right, and that he ought to present all evidence, not just evidence that was unfavourable to the judge.
But with Mr. King and Mr. Sinclair, Mr. Macintosh for the first time rose to question witnesses at the direction of the panel, inquiry chair Catherine Fraser, the Alberta Chief Justice, said at the time, of the panel members, who purportedly had follow-up questions in need of clarification.
By this time, Mr. King and Mr. Sinclair, of course, had already been cross-examined by Mr. Pratte or his associate Kirsten Crain and by Rocco Galati, Mr. Chapman’s lawyer.
And Mr. Macintosh was withering in his questions, particularly of Mr. King, and sometimes sarcastic.
By day’s end, in fact, Judge Douglas’s lawyer, Sheila Block, was so incensed by what happened she asked the panel to recuse itself, or withdraw, on the grounds that it was biased against the judge.
Mr. Pratte stopped short of joining her in the demand that the hearing be stopped, but he formally objected to Mr. Macintosh’s unusually active role and said it violated the CJC’s own rules.
The next day, the panel refused to step down, and the hearing concluded as scheduled, with more witnesses — including Judge Douglas — slated to testify when the proceeding resumed.
But then Mr. Pratte last Monday filed his application for judicial review, and within hours, Ms. Block filed one of her own in Toronto.
She seeks a finding that the way the panel has conducted itself — by ordering Mr. Macintosh to cross-examine Mr. King and Mr. Sinclair in the way he did — “gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias” against the judge and renders the panel unable to continue.
It is difficult to imagine why Mr. Pratte’s resignation letter would be deemed a private document.
As independent counsel, Mr. Pratte didn’t work for the inquiry panel. His only “client,” in other words, was the public, “in accordance with the public interest,” which is the principle that guides lawyers who take on such tasks.
The CJC, its news release Monday said, is looking to appoint a new independent counsel “as soon as possible” so the hearings can continue.
The abrupt move comes exactly a week after Mr. Pratte, who was the inquiry’s so-called “independent counsel,” sought to have inquiry decisions overturned by filing for judicial review at the Federal Court of Canada.
In that application, Mr. Pratte asked the high court to set aside aggressive questioning by the inquiry panel’s own counsel, George Macintosh, and for an order that he not grill any future witnesses.
It was a bold and unprecedented step Mr. Pratte took last week, the first time in the history of the CJC that an independent counsel has so challenged the decisions and authority of an inquiry panel.
Why he would, on the heels of taking that unusual move, suddenly resign remains unexplained.
The CJC released a statement Monday saying only that he had “tendered his resignation” and that the council had “accepted the resignation.” Asked in an email if he was able and willing to talk about it, Mr. Pratte replied, “Unfortunately not.”
And when Postmedia asked for a copy of his letter of resignation, CJC executive director Norman Sabourin replied that it was “a private document.”
Mr. Sabourin pointed out that Mr. Pratte offered his resignation letter not to the committee, but rather to the full CJC. He was appointed by the vice-chair of the judicial conduct committee of the CJC, Chief Justice Neil Wittmann of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, who also appointed the three judges on the hearing panel.
The panel of five — two lawyers round out the numbers — is hearing four allegations against Manitoba Associate Chief Justice Lori Douglas.
At the heart of that case is the allegation that in 2003, when she was a practising lawyer, she participated in the sexual harassment of a black man named Alex Chapman, whose divorce her husband, lawyer Jack King, was handling.
Judge Douglas, who hasn’t yet testified at the hearing, has denied knowing anything about what her husband was doing then — posting intimate and private pictures of her on an XXX-rated website and encouraging Mr. Chapman to join the couple in a threesome.
But Mr. King did testify late last month, as did Michael Sinclair, a former law partner of both Mr. King and Ms. Douglas, as she then was.
The sum of their evidence, uncontradicted when the hearing stopped, was that Ms. Douglas was completely in the dark about her husband’s activities.
It was, in short, evidence that could be considered favourable to the judge.
And it’s that issue — the duty of independent counsel, as Mr. Pratte saw it, to present all the evidence in the case, whether good or not for Judge Douglas — which has been at the heart of his ongoing battle with the panel.
Behind the scenes, Mr. Pratte has been wrestling for months with his duty as he sees it — as a prosecutor bound to marshal all the evidence for and against an accused person — and his duty as the panel saw it.
In May, he was so disturbed by a panel ruling — it would have limited him to presenting only the “strongest case possible” against Judge Douglas — that he threatened to quit.
The panel then confirmed that he was right, and that he ought to present all evidence, not just evidence that was unfavourable to the judge.
But with Mr. King and Mr. Sinclair, Mr. Macintosh for the first time rose to question witnesses at the direction of the panel, inquiry chair Catherine Fraser, the Alberta Chief Justice, said at the time, of the panel members, who purportedly had follow-up questions in need of clarification.
By this time, Mr. King and Mr. Sinclair, of course, had already been cross-examined by Mr. Pratte or his associate Kirsten Crain and by Rocco Galati, Mr. Chapman’s lawyer.
And Mr. Macintosh was withering in his questions, particularly of Mr. King, and sometimes sarcastic.
By day’s end, in fact, Judge Douglas’s lawyer, Sheila Block, was so incensed by what happened she asked the panel to recuse itself, or withdraw, on the grounds that it was biased against the judge.
Mr. Pratte stopped short of joining her in the demand that the hearing be stopped, but he formally objected to Mr. Macintosh’s unusually active role and said it violated the CJC’s own rules.
The next day, the panel refused to step down, and the hearing concluded as scheduled, with more witnesses — including Judge Douglas — slated to testify when the proceeding resumed.
But then Mr. Pratte last Monday filed his application for judicial review, and within hours, Ms. Block filed one of her own in Toronto.
She seeks a finding that the way the panel has conducted itself — by ordering Mr. Macintosh to cross-examine Mr. King and Mr. Sinclair in the way he did — “gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias” against the judge and renders the panel unable to continue.
It is difficult to imagine why Mr. Pratte’s resignation letter would be deemed a private document.
As independent counsel, Mr. Pratte didn’t work for the inquiry panel. His only “client,” in other words, was the public, “in accordance with the public interest,” which is the principle that guides lawyers who take on such tasks.
The CJC, its news release Monday said, is looking to appoint a new independent counsel “as soon as possible” so the hearings can continue.
posted by Clare L. Pieuk at 5:40 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home