Weekly criminal law update – March 22, 2022

  1. Wow! An acquittal on a SA trial in R v Harnett, 2022 ABQB 213 following a 6-day trial. The 42-page decision outlines the allegations in detail and notes significant inconsistencies and discrepancies with the complainant’s narrative, as well as text and other post-incident contact casting doubt on her narrative. The trial followed a 37-page decision allowing the use of necessary texts in R v Harnett, 2022 ABQB 122, followed by a second such application (a mere 18 pages – R v Harnett, 2022 ABQB 150). Here’s to hoping that the SCC gets rid of this s. 278.92-94 nonsense in its pending decision in R v JJ.
  2. Very concerning decision by ABCA in R v Wollach, 2022 ABCA 95. Absolutely a “he-said she-said” SA case, conviction upheld. By definition, the odds of wrongful conviction are very high. Concerning language, at para. 24: “An appellate court must show great deference to the trier of fact’s assessment of witness credibility and cannot interfere with credibility.” Note that the distinction between, say a “major” or “minor” discrepancy is entirely subjective, in the “eye of the beholder” and almost entirely impervious to appeal. Nothing to see here. Note that the most respected defence lawyer in the country (Brian Greenspan) expertly argued the appeal. Also, accused’s Google searches used against him at trial – problematic in itself (the Crown spent “considerable time” cross-examining about his Google searches of “consent” prior to his meeting police (trial decision, paras. 113, 178-9, and noted approvingly on appeal, at para. 12). Senior trial counsel had been accused of “propensity reasoning” (para. 150, 169) – likely imprecise if not incorrect. The accused was accused of “evasive, self-serving, and internally inconsistent” (para. 157) evidence at trial – problematic too. Bizarrely, there were insinuations at trial that he drugged the complainant, using his medical knowledge (he was a doctor), yet the Crown abandoned that argument both at opening and at closing (unclear why such innuendo was required at all, in that case – para. 159) – bizarrely mentioned twice in the appeal decision (paras. 8, 10). At the mistrial (denied here), Judge Stevenson points out there’s blame “to go around on both sides” (para. 57) regarding inadvertently “missing” the complainant’s statement and not properly disclosing it. Despite a major inconsistency (complainant appears to talk about feeling a condom in her statement – paras. 72-4, but at trial said she hadn’t felt or seen one – para. 28 – difficult to assess without a transcript; eight other inconsistencies were alleged, per appeal at para. 32, surprisingly not specified in any of the decisions and related language concerningly vague), the mistrial was denied. If it looks like a duck… Thankfully, defence counsel was not accused of using propensity reasoning on appeal – at least not by the Court.
  3. Conviction at SA trial, with Judge Bascom presiding. Despite acknowledging inconsistencies and evasion with complainant’s testimony, her narrative sufficiently reliable and corroborated by other evidence to support the conviction (paras. 52-61, R v D’Souza, 2022 ABPC 56)
  4. SA conviction – defence witness called “contemptible hypocrite” (para. 24). “It is unfortunate that neither the prosecution nor the investigator thought to obtain them [important text messages], or ask him to bring them to court” (para. 39). Despite multiple inconsistencies and credibility issues with the child witness in a sexual assault (he-said, she-said), a conviction followed (para. 82). Accused’s memory was essentially “too precise” (para. 63) 3 years later – without expert evidence, likely a finding vulnerable on appeal. His testimony is “unbelievable” and “tailored” to answer the allegations (para. 65) – also a highly problematic findings, perhaps (R v Bendick, 2022 ABPC 19)
  5. A disturbing news story from Manitoba, where an Indigenous young mother (accused) was openly insulted in court. Surely, if she was a complainant, it would have been remarkably different. The article notes “The insults were neither addressed nor denounced” by the Judge. It appears neither the Crown or defence counsel objected, either. My favourite quote, and one I may have to start quoting at trials:

    The Crown must be very cautious to avoid the perception it is interfering or interrupting during cross-examination of a witness by defence lawyers, a spokesperson from the provincial government said in a written statement.
    “Not only could it impact a trial strategy and intrude on the accused’s right to make full answer and defence, but it could also appear to be trying to protect or rehabilitate a witness inappropriately,” said the spokesperson, who did not give their name or identify the government department for whom they were speaking.

Weekly criminal law update – March 13, 2022

  1. An ONCA majority overturns a conviction for first-degree murder for both appellants, due to trial judge not giving jury the options of a conviction for second-degree murder or manslaughter. This despite trial defence counsel agreeing with the charge that only first degree murder was appropriate (see paras. 47-48). Dissenting opinion by MacPherson JA, agreeing with majority on one appellant only, and not the other. MacPherson JA calls her colleague’s conclusion “backwards” (para. 76). Expect to see it at SCC next year – R . v. Doxtator, 2022 ONCA 155
  2. A conviction for sexual assault of a child is overturned by a unanimous ONCA panel on multiple grounds in R. v. S.R., 2022 ONCA 192. The trial judge made no fewer than three material misapprehensions of the evidence (paras. 10-14). The court specifically rejects the Crown’s position that the errors were “minor” (para. 18).
  3. Yet another sexual assault conviction unanimously overturned (ONCA again) for trial judge impermissibly accusing accused of tailoring testimony to fit Crown disclosure. An almost blatant reversal of proof, perhaps. It’s shocking that this continues to occur: R. v. C.T., 2022 ONCA 163. Also incredible that appeal won with duty counsel. Hat tip Pawel Milczarek in his excellent Defence Toolkit this week.
  4. Fascinating decision by Harris J. of the ONSC in R. v. McKenzie-Walcott, 2022 ONSC 1350 (hat tip Tom Engel). A traffic stop led to search of a car and seizure of marijuana. The smell of burnt (as opposed to fresh) marijuana was insufficient to justify the search, given that the scent lingers and it can be difficult to determine the timing of when the marijuana had been smoked, per R. v. Polashek, 1999 CanLII 3714 (ON CA). The trial Crown is called out for suggesting Polashek should not be followed, as though the smell of marijuana had somehow become more familiar in the last couple of decades (paras. 19-22). A marijuana stem – ostensibly visible in the car’s interior – did not add enough to justify the search, either, given that it is not marijuana itself (paras. 29-30). The Crown is also accused of “distorting the evidence” (para. 36) and using ex post facto reasoning to justify the search (para. 52). Trial Crown ultimately accused of “There is a reasonable apprehension that the Crown’s crucial independence from the police was lost in this case together with the fundamental quasi-judicial Minister of Justice role vital to the prosecution of criminal offences” – para. 62. Officer Dunfield is found to have perjured himself (para. 63) and his “conduct exhibited bad faith and a deliberate and wilful disregard for the Applicant’s” Charter rights (para. 67). Evidence excluded. Not yet available on CanLII – freely available here (or QuickLaw).
  5. An excellent SKCA decision, overturning a conviction where trial judge implied the jury had the binary choice of accepting either witness’ testimony – neglecting to mention that they could accept some of each or neither altogether. It was a “credibility contest” and an “either/or” approach (para. 69). There was also a material misapprehension of evidence (para. 79). See para. 59 of R v Thalheimer, 2022 SKCA 25:

    Further, the presumption of correct application – which, as some commentators have pointed out, is based on questionable assumptions (David M. Tanovich, “Testing the Presumption That Trial Judges Know the Law: The Case of W. (D.)” (2001) 43 CR (5th) 298; Palma Paciocco, “Presumptions, Assumptions, and Reasons for Reasons: The Sufficiency of Trial Judgments After R. v. G.F.” (2021) 71 CR (7th) 54) – has limited scope, relates only to the basic principles of criminal law, and is a presumption, not an invariable rule. Professor Don Stuart, Faculty of Law, Queen’s University, suggests that “decisions involving ambiguity on a key issue should not be resolved by a presumption of accuracy. It is the presumption of innocence and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt that are at stake” (“R v G.F., Criminal Reports – Comments” (WL)). I would agree that these fundamental principles must always govern.

  6. An excellent acquittal by Judge LeGrandeur of Lethbridge, Alberta on a sexual assault trial. There appeared to be credibility problems with both the complainant and accused. The accused “flip flopped” in his testimony (para. 83). The complainant, for her part, had no markings on her neck, despite claiming to be seriously choked by the accused (para. 90) and her testimony also suffered from other inconsistencies (paras. 91-92). See the conclusion, paras. 93-95 of R v Hurlburt, 2022 ABPC 46:

    Given these inconsistencies, I am unsure about the credibility and reliability of her testimony concerning the 271 and 267(c) allegations. In the context of these particular incidents, these inconsistencies in the Complainant’s testimony are not insignificant and raise some concerns about the accuracy of her testimony. These inconsistencies of course could be a product of the circumstances in which these incidents allegedly occurred in the sense that the stress of the moment left her without a complete or perfect memory of what took place or the sequence of what took place, or it could be that she is filling in or confabulating certain parts of it, albeit these are not things that she indicated she did not remember, rather she was inconsistent in her testimony with respect to what she did remember.

    I am unable to conclude, despite these inconsistencies, that the Complainant is lying about what happened, but neither am I able to say that I can accept her testimony as being entirely accurate. When I consider the testimony of the Accused, in the context of the testimony of the Complainant, which is also subject to reliability questions, I am left with a reasonable doubt that the allegations made by the Crown with respect to the s271 and 267(c) charges are proven true.

    My conclusion that the evidence in this case leaves me with a reasonable doubt is not the same as deciding in any positive way that the events as alleged by the Complainant never happened. The underlying principle demanded by the concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is that even if a criminal fact finder does not entirely believe evidence inconsistent with guilt, if the fact finder is left unsure whether the evidence is true, there is a reasonable doubt and an acquittal must follow. That is the case here.

Weekly criminal law update – March 6, 2022

I’m hopeful of doing a weekly criminal law roundup or update. I may set this up as an email, too, through Mailchimp.

  1. Nice language re “myths” at para. 44 of solid acquittal: “Surely, if evidence that the complainant ran from the scene in a distraught state can be used to corroborate her story, evidence that she did not mention the assault can be used to undermine it.” – R. v. D.A.B., 2021 MBQB 185
  2. Concerning ABCA panel decision last week. Harassment sentencing case where Crown had asked for house arrest and judge went with 9 months jail. ABCA says at least 3 years jail would have been appropriate (para. 79) – with very little supporting caselaw (hopefully not a new “starting point”). In the result, uphold original sentence, given that Crown did not appeal it. Illustrative of vast disparities in sentencing philosophies and practices. Decision likely written by Justice Wakeling, who I like, although I typically don’t agree with him – his decisions are well-written and very clear. No beating around the bush, and is prepared to call out SCC when he thinks it appropriate. – R v Sidhu, 2022 ABCA 66.
    Reminds me of my Dec. 2019 blog post, which is now somewhat out of date, given SCC in R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46: Up, up and away: the Alberta Court of Appeal sets 9 year starting point for wholesale fentanyl trafficking: R v Felix, 2019 ABCA 458 (CanLII) – Moldofsky Law. See also my take in Alberta defence lawyers disappointed in Supreme Court decision validating starting-point sentences | CBC News
  3. Appeal ‘another example’ of prejudicial similar fact evidence resulting in new trial: lawyer – The Lawyer’s Daily (thelawyersdaily.ca): R v Whitehead, 2022 SKCA 19. Very interesting case where Crown similar fact evidence application was improperly allowed. Nicely done, Brian Pfefferle.
  4. Nice acquittal on SA charge by Judge Pharo out of Lethbridge AB with some great language: “The Court must weigh all of the evidence and may reject or accept some, none or all of the witness’ testimony after having taken into account a multitude of factors, including but not limited to appearance or demeanor ability and opportunity to perceive, ability to recall, motivation, probability or plausibility, and internal or external consistency.” – Para. 18, R v DCM, 2022 ABPC 47. Much better than the less-nuanced language in e.g. R. v. François, 1994 CanLII 52 (SCC – “juries are routinely charged that they may accept all of the evidence, some of the evidence, or none of the evidence of each witness”), R. v. B.C., 2011 ONCA 604, at para. 5).
  5. Excellent work by Peter Sankoff and Heather Gagnier – winning a conviction murder appeal. Important on how juries should be instructed where one co-accused implicates another; judge improperly told jury to be skeptical of accused’s evidence – R v Whiskeyjack, 2022 ABCA 76
  6. Fresh evidence application allowed (at initial stage) by Wakeling JA in R v Harris, 2022 ABCA 70. A Freudian slip, perhaps? See para. 22, emphasis added:

    It is not asking too much of an offender to insist that he or she proceed with reasonable expedition upon learning of the existence of new evidence.

I’m reading Justice Denied, a fascinating 1986 book about the wrongful conviction of Donald Marshall Jr. (video, Inquiry, article, Macleans 1987 article). A lot of similarities with the Truscott wrongful conviction (my blog post here). I’m currently working on a blog post about this, as well as on Marie Henein’s latest book and a review of the Ghomeshi trial transcript.

Policing Thoughtcrime: The Role of Law Societies?

I’ve been thinking a lot recently about the role Law Societies play in regulating the opinions expressed by lawyers. Lawyers are required to be “respectful” of tribunals and courts, yet they’re also required to be critical of injustice when they see it. How does one reconcile these sometimes-conflicting duties, and who decides what behaviour is acceptable?

We live in a time of societal reckoning. Given the pandemic and some of the issues that have been front and centre, it is a time when many are challenging fundamental assumptions about how (and by whom) law is created, enforced and imposed. Although respect for our legal systems is required, fundamental rethinking of our legal systems themselves may require some creative thinking – and may occasionally show less respect than we’re accustomed to for the systems we have in place. People are beginning to challenge systemic racism and biases in our justice systems. Is that suggestive of respect for our legal system? I’d think not.

I’ve been openly critical of courts and our justice system – usually in specific instances – on my blog, for instance. I asked on Twitter (back in April) what people think of this, given that I had noticed several lawyers on Twitter deleting comments they had made that were slightly critical of the Supreme Court. One lawyer privately noted that he liked the points that I made. Another lawyer (bravely) publicly commented that “The litany of wrongful convictions in this country have exposed a series of systemic issues in our justice system. Robust and reasoned criticism should be encouraged” – which is perhaps more aspirational than practical. The very fact that lawyers are constantly deleting their comments is precisely indicative of the concern I am raising – if lawyers are terrified of criticizing courts, what kind of justice system is this altogether? An Orwellian version of 1950s McCarthyism? Other present-day countries for whom freedom of speech is an absolute joke?

It brings to mind the saga of Joe Groia – the lawyer who was harassed by the Law Society of Ontario for decades, finally to be vindicated by the Supreme Court some 4 years ago. He spoke at my school a while back, and he was easily the most inspiring figure I heard there – and I heard more than one Supreme Court justice speak. More on him below.

Judges

A major problem with our justice system is its aura of invincibility. Judges are practically equated with deities. This is not helpful to anyone, yet it permeates the culture in legal circles. I think treating judges as human beings would go a long way toward leveling the playing field and making our justice system more equitable, accessible and just.

For example, judges are “presumed to be impartial” and courts are often very resistant to the idea that a judge made a mistake – or worse, appeared to be biased against one side or another. I actually had a judge practically scream at me (while denying a mistrial application) about how fair all judges on the bench were – prior to my successful appeal of his trial decisions – primarily on the ground of bias.

Why are we so resistant to the idea that judges are human beings, and often simply do not bring their best selves to work? Lawyers – including very senior ones – are constantly disciplined for various misdemeanours and accounting irregularities, etc. Why do we assume that, once someone is appointed to the bench – particularly given that many appointments are political – they turn into a saint who can do no evil? Who does this fantasy serve? Certainly not the public nor the “administration of justice.” See Richard Posner’s excellent book for more on the humanity of judges.

Note the excellent decision of R. v. Gashikanyi, 2017 ABCA 194 – cited approvingly by the Supreme Court in R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46 at para. 139 – in which Berger JA notes that judges are “no different than butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers” (para. 72). In para. 74, he notes – quite correctly, I’ll note – that “a disproportionate opportunity” is afforded to “certain judges to shape the jurisprudence of the Court.” Rowbotham JA strongly disagreed – ironically noting the “very high” presumption of judicial impartiality, “not easily displaced” (para. 116).

In R. v. Sitladeen, 2021 ONCA 303, Miller JA criticizes scholarly articles as “legal advocacy” and a “backdoor admission of expert social science evidence” (paras. 101, 99). If this is true, it is concerning, given that the majority of Supreme Court of Canada decisions rely on “legal advocacy” – including recent, extensive reliance on Professor Craig’s book “Putting Trials on Trial” – which I critically review here.

In R v Stephan, 2021 ABCA 82, the ABCA found that the trial judge’s behaviour gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias (para. 148). The Crown had delicately suggested not that the judge was “actually biased, only that the cumulative effect of some of his comments give rise to that perception” (para. 111). In that case, the trial judge had commented negatively about the accent and language skills of a proposed Crown expert. Based on my understanding of the facts of that case, I disagree with the Court of Appeal’s finding that the judge’s words would lead to a reasonable apprehension of bias (or actual bias), and the Crown subsequently stayed the proceedings anyway. It also appears that the expert was an absolute fraudster. In any event, would it have been a breach of Crown ethical duties had they alleged that the judge was actually biased? I would hope not – but again, it’s difficult to reconcile with the duty to be respectful of the court.

In R. v. Brown, 2003 CanLII 52142 (ON CA), the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed a Crown appeal of a summary conviction appeal that had overturned a conviction where allegations of racial profiling against the arresting officer were found to be improper – at the trial level. Morden JA found that “open indication of distaste or, to use a synonym, aversion, during the presentation of a case is utterly inconsistent with the duty of a judge to listen dispassionately with an open mind” (para. 103).

Another judge who was publicly criticized is Judge Camp.[1] He was famously disgraced publicly (perhaps “tarred and feathered” would be a more accurate account) for making statements about a complainant in a sexual assault trial that were said to be demeaning. I think he did nothing wrong, and it’s a shame he was fired. What’s worse is so many judges do far worse than what he was accused of – usually towards presumptively innocent accused persons (for example, disbelieving them without good reason, presuming them to be guilty, etc.). I’ve never heard of anyone being disciplined for that – especially if they’re less overt about their views (“I mean, mistakes happen, right? That’s why we have appeal courts”, etc. etc.). Even in disturbing cases of wrongful convictions rarely being overturned (for example, R. v. Ururyar, 2017 ONSC 4428 – the trial judge’s reasons were simply “incomprehensible” and 4 of 6 grounds of appeal from conviction were valid – paras. 57, 62, 64, 66), I don’t recall a stitch of public outcry for sanctions against the judge – why is that? It’s a good thing that judge didn’t say anything even slightly distasteful to a lying complainant, as Judge Camp may have – otherwise, he’d be unceremoniously dumped, too. See also the R. v. Howe, 2015 NSCA 84 fiasco I discuss (alongside Ururyar) here – note the Ururyar judge’s recent virtue signaling post here – an apology to the public and to the accused would have been far more appropriate. See also here and here.

In R. v. Ibrahim, 2019 ONCA 631 (Star), the ONCA was highly critical of the trial judge’s (ON Superior Court Justice Robert Clark) “injudicious” (para. 95) approach, criticized his criticism of the ethics of counsel (finding them to be “unfair” and unfounded” – at para. 87), and criticized his refusal to allow counsel to rely on their observations at trial (para. 89). The appeal court was also quite concerned about allegations of injudicious judicial “deportment” (yelling, etc.) alleged by the appellant, not deciding whether it gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias (para. 109). In the conclusion, the appeal was granted on other grounds (para. 116). See paras. 113-114, emphasis added:

We appreciate that a lengthy murder trial can be very stressful for all involved — the jury, witnesses, counsel, court staff, the judge, spectators and, most especially, the accused person and his or her family, as well as the deceased’s family, friends and supporters. There is so much at stake. Emotions may run high. Things may be said that should not have been, or words spoken in an ill-advised manner. In most cases these moments naturally pass, perhaps after a short break. Sometimes an apology may be warranted. Nevertheless, and notwithstanding where fault lies, it is the trial judge’s responsibility to reduce the stress of conflict, not to exacerbate the situation through harsh words, a raised voice, or distracting and hostile non-verbal communications.

As Lord Denning said in The Family Story (London: Butterworths & Co. (Publishers) Ltd., 1981), at p. 162: “When a judge sits to try a case with a jury, he is himself on trial — before his fellow countrymen. It is on his behaviour that they will form their opinion of our system of justice.”

The mistrial application was dismissed (R. v Ibrahim, 2016 ONSC 7665 – a hefty 66-page decision) – subsequently criticized despite its length. Note defence counsel was racialized – same defence counsel as in R. v. Hill, 2011 ONSC 3935. Another racialized defence counsel recently disparaged here. Their crime? Speaking truth to power. I’ll get into this further, below.

Same judge also in R. v. Ruthowsky, 2018 ONCA 552 – appeal bail sadly denied. Also, similar allegations made against this same judge in both R. v. Gager, 2020 ONCA 274 (albeit dismissed – para. 150) and R. v. Mills, 2019 ONCA 940 (dismissed, e.g. para. 238) – hat tip Chris Sewrattan. Note also R. v. Roberts-Stevens, 2018 ONSC 6184, at paras. 62, 92-95 – agreeing with Paciocco JA’s observation in Ruthowsky that allegations of bias should ideally be brought at trial – not on appeal for the first time.

Same judge again in 2010 – mistrial granted. Note very senior defence counsel in that case (Eddie Greenspan) – one shudders to imagine how a junior counsel would have fared (not that I’ve ever been on the receiving end of a judge’s unseemly wrath for bringing an appropriate – and subsequently vindicated – mistrial application). Then again, in 2017, the same judge granted a mistrial for having uttered an obscenity during trial – just about everyone heard it, but he somehow insisted that he did not, in any event. What is that – 6 known requested (2 granted) mistrials from the same judge in less than a decade? Simply obscene. See here and here for more on this.

This judge was appointed in 2003, had been a Crown since 1984. Retired just last year. No publicly available record of discipline that I could find – likely safe to assume he received no discipline and/or complaints despite his clearly egregious misconduct over the course of a decade or longer.

The assertion that judges – who earn upwards of a half million dollars a year – are somehow vulnerable and deserving of extra protection (e.g. Rule 5.6 of the LSA’s Code of Conduct) is simply preposterous and inappropriate. Seriously?

See also Abbe Smith, Judges as Bullies (2017).

Lawyers’ Civility Requirement

Lawyers sometimes bravely and rightly criticize our justice system. For example, “Systemic racism in criminal punishment is not a uniquely American phenomenon”.

Pre-Groia: “Judge Camp’s conduct and reasons in Wagar angered and disgusted me.” – Prof. (now ABQB Justice) Alice Woolley, emphasis added, ABlawg. Further,

The exhortation to fair and temperate criticism needs to be understood in light of these broader concerns. As the Supreme Court said in Doré v Barreau du Québec, 2012 SCC 12, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 395, “lawyers should not be expected to behave like verbal eunuchs. They not only have a right to speak their minds freely, they arguably have a duty to do so” (at para 68).

Or “…The findings affirm Woolley’s initial impressions when she first reviewed the transcript of the original trial. “I had a friend at the Crown and he read it with me,” she recalls. “We said, ‘oh, my God, this is jaw-dropping.’” Also temperate and respectful?[2]

The SCC released its decision – 4 years ago – in Groia v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2018 SCC 27. Finally, some direction! In its decision, the Court recognized that trials are “often hard fought” and are “not tea parties” (Groia, paras 3 and 99). It is clearly virtuous – and arguably obligatory – lawyerly conduct to “raise fearlessly every issue, advance every argument and ask every question, however distasteful” to advance a client’s interests within the boundaries of the law (Groia, para 73). This is especially true in the criminal context, where liberty interests are at stake and the client has a constitutional right to make full answer and defence (Groia, para 62).

“In other words, allegations that are either made in bad faith or without a reasonable basis [may] amount to professional misconduct” – paras. 81-83. In other words, the presence of good faith and a reasonable basis should be absolute bars to a finding of misconduct. It would be nice if this were the standard enunciated and applied by Law Societies – rather than their obtuse, ambiguous, and contradictory ones (more on this below). Perhaps Law Societies can start by updating their “archaic” (p. 30) legislation in this manner – which clearly were updated after the Groia decision (sarcasm). While they’re (hopefully) at it, getting rid of the “confidentiality” requirement around complaints would also make sense, given that it protects no one but itself from criticism.

Apparently, despite the SCC’s very clear direction in Groia (following a decades-long, obscenely expensive, crippling and wrongful Law Society persecution of him), some law societies appear unprepared to accept its conclusions. Clearly, it is not only some appellate courts that choose to ignore Supreme Court decisions when they are not to their liking.

I have engaged in a bit of research while preparing this blog post, and it is my position that the “line” of civility is extremely ambiguous – pre-Groia, anyway. I have specifically reviewed, among other sources, The Advocates’ Society (rule 78); Groia v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2018 SCC 27 – reviewed here, and the Law Society of Alberta’s Code of Conduct, e.g. 5.1-1. I note the commentary on 5.6 (emphasis added):

A lawyer should take care not to weaken or destroy public confidence in legal institutions or authorities by irresponsible allegations. The lawyer in public life should be particularly careful in this regard because the mere fact of being a lawyer will lend weight and credibility to public statements. Yet, for the same reason, a lawyer should not hesitate to speak out against an injustice. […]

Criticizing Tribunals – Proceedings and decisions of courts and tribunals are properly subject to scrutiny and criticism by all members of the public, including lawyers, but judges and members of tribunals are often prohibited by law or custom from defending themselves. Their inability to do so imposes special responsibilities upon lawyers. First, a lawyer should avoid criticism that is petty, intemperate or unsupported by a bona fide belief in its real merit, since, in the eyes of the public, professional knowledge lends weight to the lawyer’s judgments or criticism. Second, if a lawyer has been involved in the proceedings, there is the risk that any criticism may be, or may appear to be, partisan rather than objective. Third, when a tribunal is the object of unjust criticism, a lawyer, as a participant in the administration of justice, is uniquely able to, and should, support the tribunal, both because its members cannot defend themselves and because, in doing so, the lawyer contributes to greater public understanding of, and therefore respect for, the legal system. [4] A lawyer, by training, opportunity and experience, is in a position to observe the workings and discover the strengths and weaknesses of laws, legal institutions and public authorities. A lawyer should, therefore, lead in seeking improvements in the legal system, but any criticisms and proposals should be bona fide and reasoned.

For example, Rule 22: “Advocates should use tactics that are legal, honest, and respectful of courts and tribunals” (Advocates’ Society). Rules 79-87 include what counsel are entitled to expect from the judiciary, including 82: “Advocates are entitled to expect that judges will not unfairly or unjustifiably reprimand, criticize, disparage, or impugn counsel, litigants, and witnesses, or demonstrate or engage in intemperate and impatient behaviour.”

See also A. Woolley, Does Civility Matter?, (2008), at 188: and “Uncivil by too much civility”?: Critiquing Five More Years of Civility Regulation in Canada, 2013 CanLIIDocs 759, at 266.

Civility in the Courtroom | CanLII: Nicole Lewis, 2019 (stumbled upon excellent freely-available Carleton County Law Association’s criminal law conference materials, 2014-2019). Notes “contradictory” and “ambiguous” (I’d prefer “obtuse”) Law Society rules regarding civility (pp. 3-4), and mentions Groia.

Speaking of Groia, the prominent lawyer Frank Addario trashes the Law Society of Ontario in this 2015 article for the Star. It is so good I will need to quote the majority of it:

In an age when wrongful convictions are unearthed regularly and newspapers abound with stories of government misconduct, one might expect the role of defence lawyers to have earned a modicum of respect.

Guess again. The unsettling case of lawyer Joseph Groia is a shining example of how poorly the role of defence counsel is understood.

Groia is accused of defending his client too enthusiastically. […]

The scorecard is grim for Groia. After a slew of hearings, he faces a one-month suspension of his right to practise law and an order that he pay $200,000 in legal costs. Further appeals will likely focus on two central questions: Is there a need to rein in the defence bar? And if so, is there a means to do so that will not endanger the trial process?

The answer to each question is an emphatic no.

Groia’s sin during the lengthy Bre-X trial was to allege, noisily, that Felderhof had been abused and railroaded. Depending on one’s perspective, his manner was gratuitously rude and bombastic or tough, fearless and effective.

That a lawyer vigorously defending his client could be seen as deserving of professional censure reinforces the popular urban myth that defence counsel are more disruptive than helpful when it comes to achieving justice.

The courtroom is not a trousseau tea, where genteel bewigged lawyers agree to disagree. For the defendant it is a fight for his life; one in which the odds are stacked against him by a better-resourced opponent wearing the white hat. A certain amount of toughness is necessary.

If certain defences are off the table because they are too rude to advance, it is not the defence lawyer who suffers; it is the credibility of the legal system as a vehicle for getting to a just result. If a defence lawyer runs the risk of suffering reprisal, how can she be expected to take an unpopular or even irritating position? […]

Recently, the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned an attempted murder conviction on the basis that the trial prosecutor behaved with unacceptable zeal. The defendant — an intensely religious man entangled in a vitriolic separation — was accused of inciting the couple’s three children to drown their mother. In his closing address to the jury, the Crown referred to the defendant as a dangerous “Jesus nut.”

The chance of this prosecutor being disciplined or fined is close to zero. He might be counselled to temper his enthusiasm, an appropriate solution. Groia, on the other hand, saw his reputation and his pocketbook trashed for his transgressions. […]

If it is too much to expect the general public to understand the importance of what we do, it cannot be too much to ask of those who regulate our profession.

See also this great article on Groia, prior to the SCC decision (emphasis added):

The Ontario legal regulator has done absurd things over the years, but the most egregious is to attack Joe Groia and make him the poster child of a civility campaign.

When the justice system is splitting at the seams, students can’t find jobs, unrepresented litigants are clogging courts and new competitors are emerging to eat lawyers’ lunches, the law society focuses on civility. Rome burns and Nero fiddles. […]

His biggest transgressions were a sharp tongue, piercing words and pushing back hard for his client, despite a threatening letter from Big Brother hanging over his head.

He’s paid the ultimate price. His legal bill is nearing $2 million […]

There’s the rub. In an adversarial system, it takes two to tango, yet Groia was the only one charged. No prosecutors were called on the carpet for their tactics in that trial.

Groia’s case has become one of historical revisionism, with every level of court and tribunal doing what lawyers are so good at — second-guessing, navel gazing and using hindsight. Facts are cherry-picked or ignored to support viewpoints. […]

Rather, the legal regulator circled the wagons around lawyers at the securities regulator, including Naster [Crown], who later worked for the law society on the prosecution of former Torys LLP lawyers Beth DeMerchant and Darren Sukonick.

The profession should be concerned about the Groia case because, in civility prosecutions, defence counsel wear the target on their back.

A 2013 paper by lawyer Don Bayne examined law society statistics from 2010 to 2012 and found that 88 per cent of the incivility complaints involving criminal lawyers were against defence counsel; only 12 per cent involved Crown counsel. Also, judges complain more about criminal lawyers than any other type of lawyer. Bayne identifies a number of instances where the prosecution crossed the line in the Felderhof case, but he notes that Crown counsel “bore no discipline measure of responsibility for its role in the Felderhof incivility.” […]

Let’s hope the SCC sees it as broadly as Brown. Otherwise, litigators, get out your muzzle; the law society is watching you.

All excellent points. Defence counsel absolutely have a target on their back – particularly junior and racialized ones. Crowns are almost never the subject of serious scrutiny by Law Societies – bizarre, given its clear mandate to “protect the public” and the incredible power wielded by that particular office. Would Groia have been able to survive the onslaught had he been less senior and respected? Unlikely. He was called to the bar in 1981 – over 20 years before the brouhaha began.

Racism

The following SCC decision is said to be a racist decision: R. v. S. (R.D.), 1997 CanLII 324 (SCC) – a case I comment on here. See Richard Devlin’s 1995 article pre-dating it and Constance Backhouse’s recent (and quite troubling) article. See criticism from Prof. David Tanovich of our criminal justice system, based on this case. Another good example of a critique of our justice system by a prominent and excellent defence lawyer: “The problem is that it’s so rare to see the presumption of innocence actually play out in the courtroom – especially when the accused is racialized.” I haven’t heard of anyone (yet) getting into trouble for this type of criticism of our highest court. Are allegations of racism condoned while allegations of butchering the law of sexual assault or ignoring the presumption of innocence so obviously beyond the pale and/or scandalous?

I’ve reviewed a recent, “successful” Law Society of Alberta persecution of a senior, racialized defence lawyer on grounds of incivility. Noting Groia, the appeal panel upheld the prior finding of misconduct. The lawyer had sent around a letter complaining about the ethics of a judge whom he had dealt with extensively as a Crown in her prior career (LSA obviously refusing to publish the judge’s name). Given its acknowledgment that Groia suggests good faith and a reasonable basis can be absolute bar to a finding of misconduct, the panel (surprisingly?) found that it was not in good faith. A determination premised on what, you ask? Well, he hadn’t complained to the Law Society (para. 111), so clearly it was a frivolous complaint! I’d be tempted to call this reasoning “asinine” but I’m not sure if that’s permitted. Who do I ask?

A complaint about a former Crown who is now a judge is not an isolated event – nor by definition unjustified, as the LSA appears to think. See R. v. Strybosch, 2021 ONSC 6109.

Why the Law Society was not concerned about the substance of the complaint about the judge (or other Crowns in that office), choosing instead to shoot the messenger, is unclear. Are they protecting the public? It sure doesn’t seem that way. Instead, they seem eager to sanction (and muzzle) racialized, primarily junior, defence lawyers. For shame.[3]

 

[1] Not the first or last time a judge was ambushed in the court of public opinion (see 1990 case of Judge Bourassa).

[2] Speaking of temperate criticism, see Prof. Dufraimont’s new article on rape myths – my Twitter critique of it here and here. Noting my review of Prof. Sankoff’s seminar and this.

[3] Note the LSA’s lip service to “diversity” – e.g. “My Experience” Project – Law Society of Alberta, claiming to give voice to those who have experienced racial discrimination in Alberta.

25 “I have had my fair share of experiences that I can’t term as anything other than discriminatory and stereotyping, specifically by judges”, 2,

4 – “While for the most part, I have been treated with a basic level respect by colleagues in practise, I continue to experience “microaggressions” every day from lawyers and judges a like, that remind me that I am still an outsider” and “We are in a unique position to actively challenge, test, and thereby shape the legal system, and I would argue – it is our duty to do so.”

See also 8, 11, 13, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, 26, 30.

The Trial of Steven Truscott – How Little has Changed since 1959

“And with the greatest respect, my lord, I submit that the jury listening to your charge could not help but get the impression that you consider a verdict of guilty was warranted on the evidence,” Steven’s lawyer said. It was as close to calling a judge biased as a lawyer could go.

The judge’s five-word response was stunning.

“What is wrong with that?”

I recently read the excellent 1966 book by Isabel LeBourdais, The Trial of Steven Truscott (Amazon). It details a wrongful conviction from 1959 – a grisly rape/murder of a 12 year-old girl for which a 14 year-old boy (Truscott) was wrongfully accused, convicted and sentenced to hang. Thankfully, the sentence was soon commuted to life imprisonment and he was released after about 10 years of wrongful imprisonment. It appeared to capture the public’s imagination – given the nature of the tragedy of both the murder of the victim and the imminent hanging of the other victim (the wrongfully charged and convicted 14 year-old). The commutation of the sentence to life imprisonment helped to somewhat lessen the consequences of the tragedy.

See “Requiem for a fourteen-year-old”, a haunting poem by journalist Pierre Berton, published in the Toronto Star on Oct. 5, 1959 – a mere six days after the sentence, and quoted in LeBourdais’ book (“Just eye for eye and tooth for tooth/Tooth for tooth and eye for eye:/A child does murder/A child must die. […] Save your prayers for the righteous ghouls/In that Higher Court who write the rules/For judge and jury and hangman too:/The Court composed of me and you.”). Apparently, Berton received a ton of hate mail for it (p. 212), including some wishing horrendous things on his own children.

Truscott’s wrongful conviction may never have reached the public consciousness as such if not for the superhuman efforts of Isabel LeBourdais (she was almost unknown before her book). Apparently, the SCC, in its unhuman arrogance, refused to allow her a seat[1] to watch the “retrial” or Reference. It apparently took her a long time to find a publisher for her book, given that she was – gasp! – critical of our justice system[2]. Publishers (and their lawyers) were concerned of being found to be in “contempt of court” if they published her critique and they all turned her down, until she eventually found a willing publisher. Has anything changed in the 55 years since then? Absolutely not! The hubris of our judicial system – and the sheer horror that accompanies any criticism of it (unless of course adjudged to be politically correct, such as Elaine Craig’s unjustified and vague critiques) – continues to be astounding. Note the book is reviewed: “The book is a “terrible revelation of the bumptious arrogance, the pretence and the ritualistic nonsense which afflicts the Canadian courtroom“” and “Crown counsel, she said, was antagonistic, vindictive, and interested only in securing a conviction – wasn’t interested in the cause of justice at all” – Innocence Lost, pp. 65 and 66, emphasis added.

A brief history of the case: Truscott told police when the girl had gone missing that he had given her a bike ride to the highway, and that he had seen her get into a car. The police and Crown – instead chose to proceed on the assumption that he never took her to the road, but had instead gruesomely raped and murdered her in the nearby bushes – where she had been found a day or two later. Whether this choice of the prosecution was because they had no other suspect and almost no real evidence (hence a bit desperate) or was a product of their sick minds is difficult to know. There is some indication in the literature (e.g. Real Justice) that there was a viable suspect that was not investigated, given his military rank.

In any event, the media quickly bought into this absurd theory. So did most of the townspeople of the little town he lived in. Clearly, so too did the judge and jurors at his 1959 local trial – see chapter XI of the book for eye-raisingly alarming misrepresentations and “spin” by the judge in his charge to the jury at the end of the trial – some notable examples include commenting on Truscott’s appearance at trial as apathetic (“You will ask yourselves and you will ask yourselves the reason if this boy is guilty, why he has shown such calmness and apathy” – dismissed by the SCC, though slammed by Hall J. in dissent), misstating the evidence on multiple points, showing significant favouritism to the Crown’s case, “experts” and witnesses, even suggesting an inference not available in the evidence – that if Truscott was not lying about taking her to the highway – as the Crown had so strenuously argued he was lying – he might have also taken her back, as someone must have(!). You’ll never believe that the judge (Justice Robert Irvine Ferguson – bio likely here, he had 9 years of judicial experience at the time of trial) later tried to get LeBourdais (and Berton) in trouble for writing her book (recommending a prosecution for public mischief, given her “thoroughly dishonest piece of writing” – in his opinion – and “vilification of the courts” – surprisingly not pursued by the Attorney General – without a doubt no one dared complain about the judge himself and if they had, they would have been punished)! Don’t get me started on the Crown’s behaviour at the trial, which objectively should have been more than sufficient for him to have been disbarred (one example was a sly mention to the jury of a statement made by Truscott that was later ruled inadmissible – even the judge said the Crown had “made a mistrial” with his idiotic and unethical comment – unfortunately, it was overlooked later in the trial and surprisingly found to be insufficient for a new trial according to the SCC). I can guarantee you he faced absolutely no censure – I’d be surprised if he (Glen Hays, Q.C.) wasn’t promoted and/or appointed a judge after his unethical behaviour at trial. Well done!

In the book, the overwhelming presumption of guilt that appeared to surround these charges (both at the time of trial and much later, clearly) is extremely obvious. She points out the editor of the local paper telling her he didn’t know a soul who didn’t believe in Truscott’s guilt.

After conviction, the Ontario Court of Appeal refused to overturn the conviction (a 5 member unanimous panel – Regina v. Truscott, 1960 CanLII 474 (ON CA), as did the Supreme Court (shocker!) shortly thereafter (not reported, apparently they dismissed it 2 days after it was filed, according to Real Justice). Following the controversy following the release of the book (it had 4 editions in 1966 – likely a bestseller), the SCC (very reluctantly, it appears – note LeBourdais’ accurate prediction that the SCC would not be prepared to overrule its earlier decision) agreed to hear a retrial (a Reference – apparently the first time the SCC had ever allowed new evidence on an appeal). In the SCC, Truscott testified (he didn’t at trial – not that, God forbid, that was used against him in any way, shape or form, at the trial). In any event, the SCC found him to be incredibly unreliable (“Since the evidence was given at trial, Truscott has testified on the reference. We refer herein to the parts of his testimony which simply cannot be believed” – emphasis added. Why can’t he be believed, you ask? Because, among other things, the SCC was convinced the killing happened where the body was found – definitely not true, and the book goes to great pains to show why this is not the case) and appears persuaded by the Crown’s child witnesses, most of whom were lying through their teeth – establishing that the SCC is just as bad at assessing credibility as it is at both applying the law and amateur sleuthing. Truscott had the benefit of G. Arthur Martin, Q.C. as his lawyer at the SCC – probably the most respected criminal law mind in Canadian history. Note the Crown had no doubt some of the best lawyers in the country representing it at the SCC (W.C. Bowman Q.C., D.H. Scott, Q.C., and federal deputy justice minister D.H. Christie, Q.C. – later associate chief judge of the Tax Court [3]) – yet it didn’t disclose critical information (such as Dr. Penistan’s recent, “agonizing reappraisal” nor the presence of a 4th witness, Karen Daum, who corroborated Truscott’s 3 other witnesses – each of whom the Crown had claimed were liars).

There was a vicious “battle of the experts” at the SCC, along with various new evidence adduced (almost entirely thanks to LeBourdais’ fantastic book). After a multiple day hearing, the SCC reserved its decision. When it returned its decision (Reference Re: Steven Murray Truscott, 1967 CanLII 66 (SCC)), it dismissed the appeal, by an 8-1 margin. The lone justice apparently prepared to acknowledge innocence when it stared him right in the face was Justice Emmett Hall (highly respected and not a member of the SCC when the first appeal was dismissed).

The case more-or-less disappeared from the public limelight afterward. In 2000, a Fifth Estate episode and very hard work by Innocence Canada (lawyer James Lockyer, among others, and extensive new entomological evidence), the ONCA agreed to reopen the case, overturn the conviction and enter an acquittal in its place (Truscott (Re), 2007 ONCA 575). The poor victim was even paid a few million dollars of “hush money” by the government for his troubles. As far as I know, the SCC has not yet apologized (and why should they, given that they’re infallible) – nor have they even acknowledged their horrendous, inexcusable and bone-headed role in this awful wrongful conviction.

What I find most shocking about the SCC’s decision was its conclusion that the weight of the evidence – including the new evidence – points to guilt and that “parts of his testimony simply cannot be believed” [4]. How that finding is compatible with any of the 8 being, er, the most intelligent judges in the country is simply mind-blowing[5]. A quick review of the book (and/or the new evidence) is all that is needed to see that the conviction was incredibly weak. How that could be missed can only be explained by tunnel vision, or at best – the presumption of innocence being an absolute joke[6] (of course, the SCC likely didn’t read the book – why would they? Definitely want to make sure the Crown gets a “fair shake” at the hearing).

There were a number of issues that the Crown relied on to obtain the conviction, including but not limited to:

  1. Numerous eyewitnesses (mostly children) that swore up and down that they had or hadn’t seen the accused at the appropriate times (on the bridge, biking back, etc.). Of course, there were many other children testifying for the defence, but they were mostly “liars.” The Crown witnesses were clearly tampered with and coached excessively by police and/or Crown, and most were almost certainly lying (see Real Justice). Nevertheless, their testimony was considered extremely reliable – by the Crown, trial judge, jury, and clearly the SCC on both occasions. In fact, you can say the SCC largely “hung its hat” on this absurd and tenuous testimony in 1967, essentially finding that there was no other way to explain such convincing “evidence” of guilt. See here.
  2. The stomach contents evidence – the Crown relied on very shaky “evidence” at trial from pathologists (primarily Dr. Penistan) who insisted that the stomach contents put the time of death precisely between 7:15-7:45 PM that evening, which tightened the grip “like a vise” around Truscott, according to the trial Crown in closing argument. There were significant weaknesses in this nonsense, and some of it was exposed by defence at trial, especially by its own expert, and also by LeBourdais in her book (extensively – suggesting the time of death was quite possibly at least a few hours later – Innocence Canada notes that Dr. Penistan’s draft notes at the time of the autopsy – not disclosed to defence – put the timeframe after midnight that evening, 5 hours later than the time Dr. Penistan swore up and down at trial that the death occurred). On the 1967 Reference, countless experts were called – by both sides – with at least one Crown “expert” making a complete ass of himself thanks to rigorous (and legendary) cross-examination by G. Arthur Martin (excerpted in just about every Canadian advocacy textbook – neglecting to mention that the “ammunition” for this lethal cross-examination likely came directly from LeBourdais’ book) – not that the inconsistencies appeared to be recognized by the SCC. Somehow, this wasn’t sufficient for the SCC to overturn the conviction. Note that on the 2007 reference, a big part of the decision focused on newer, entomological evidence that also destroyed the Crown hypothesis. Did I mention that Dr. Penistan had an “agonizing re-appraisal[7]” of his opinion prior to the 1967 Reference (right around when the book was released – coincidentally!), which was never mentioned to the defence, and he was (surprisingly!) not called at the SCC Reference? Note that the Crown even had the nerve to call further evidence at the 2007 Reference supporting Dr. Penistan’s trial perjury/lies – thankfully dismissed by the Court (paras. 165-166). Of course, theoretically improved (as of the ‘90s) Crown “disclosure obligations” should fix that! (sarcasm).
  3. Genital lesions on Truscott – the Crown made a very big deal out of these at trial, and is utterly demolished in the book. Thankfully, the Crown appeared to ignore the issue at the Reference, and practically conceded that it was entirely BS. Apparently, 5 dermatologists further testified at that Reference (all for defence) that the Crown trial doctors (including Penistan, whose other testimony should also be suspect as a direct result of these lies) were full of s**t – at best – who cares, right?
  4. View of the highway from the road – Truscott had told police that he could see the colour (not the numbers, as was wrongly claimed at trial by both the Crown and judge) of the license plate that picked up the girl from where he stood on the road. Misleading Crown evidence “showed” he was a liar – thoroughly debunked in the book. Insufficient – surprisingly – for a new trial at the SCC (downplayed there altogether), despite the egregious nature of this bogus evidence and the very significant negative (or positive – depending on your perspective) effect it certainly had at trial.
  5. There was also some crap about Truscott telling a kid (Arnold “Butch” George) to back up his “alibi” defence – this is also thoroughly demolished in the book. Note that George had originally told police that he had seen Truscott and retracted it the next day – once the police began homing in on Truscott as the suspect – and then claimed Truscott had told him to lie for him. Of course, dangerous for Truscott’s credibility and “character.” Concerningly, not criticized by SCC.
  6. There was another witness (a Jocelyne Gaudete – incredibly unreliable) who made up a story about Truscott trying to get her to see some calves (or ponies – I’ve lost track at this point) with her – you’ll be surprised to know that her evidence was relied on heavily by the Crown to secure the conviction (see here for weaknesses in her evidence – known to police and/or Crown at the time)! Her story included that Truscott had told her not to tell anyone – also (false) bad character evidence. Of course, more awful bad character evidence, which I’m sure courts these days would excuse as necessary for “narrative,” as the SCC majority blatantly did in the 1967 Reference.
  7. The accused did not give evidence at his trial – definitely not allowed to be relied upon to establish guilt (in theory), but in practice, it very often is (to this day!) – in Canada, anyway[8]. Note the second sentence of the 1967 reference (emphasis and brackets added): “Most of the evidence was circumstantial [ya think?] and the accused did not give evidence at his trial [therefore? …]”.
  8. Media – in fact, allowed to be tried as an adult to entitle the media to broadcast his “guilt” as early and as often as it pleased and to allow for the death penalty (Regina v. Truscott, 1959 CanLII 496 (ON SC) – note the ironic finding that “in a matter of this kind where public sentiment may have been aroused, the trial and disposition of the matter shall be in the ordinary course and free from any criticism” – emphasis added) – apparently, media allowed to report all of the details at the trial – despite the youth of the accused and the blindingly obvious prejudicial nature of this coverage.
  9. Have a load of this, from the SCC: “We do not think that there is any doubt about the place of death. The position of the body, the scuff marks and a footprint at the foot, and the flattening of the vegetation between the legs, indicated that the act of rape took place there.” This is dead wrong actually – it was definitely not the place of death, as established in the book, and conclusively at the 2007 Reference.
  10. The trial judge’s charge to the jury included (emphasis added) “It will be for you to say whether you accept Doctor Penistan’s theory, an Attorney-General’s Pathologist of many years’ standing, or do you accept Doctor Brown’s [defence] evidence.” Biased much?
  11. Blame defence counsel! Defence didn’t insist on a mistrial at the time – due to some blatant misconduct from the Crown that the judge at the time suggested called for a mistrial. Same with other clearly biased words from both the Crown and judge. Whether or not the SCC explicitly blames defence counsel, it certainly penalizes the victim, which further adds insult to injury. It’s very simple, SCC – glaring mistakes made by Crown, judge, etc. are grounds for a new trial – whether or not defence counsel objected at the time. Please don’t continue to blame the accused and/or his counsel (and visit the consequences upon them) for a grossly unfair system that they’ve done nothing to establish.

Here are some lessons I think we can all take from this awful wrongful conviction (ahem, SCC) – adoption of which may slightly reduce the odds in the future of this kind of travesty, considering that so little has actually changed in our laws or approach to criminal justice and trials in general since 1959 (other than abolition of death penalty, improved theoretical right to disclosure; otherwise, convictions have been made arguably a lot easier by “relaxing” of evidentiary rules and the quagmire that is “credibility contests” these days and denial of almost all possible defences for sexual assault charges – with ss. 276, 278, and the refusal to allow most defences by somehow calling them “myths” as I’ve blogged about extensively in the past):

  1. Presumption of innocence is a thing – it’s time to actually take it seriously, not just pay lip service to it, as we’ve been doing for a mere century or two. Maybe a complainant shouldn’t be defined as a “victim of an alleged offence” according to our Criminal Code (pre-conviction, s. 2, emphasis added). Same goes for ethical and fair conduct by the Crown and courts (of all levels – I should stress);
  2. Watch out for lying/perjuring “experts” – they’re fairly common, it appears;
  3. Watch out for lying/perjuring witnesses – these are also fairly common in Canada, it seems. Perhaps they should even suffer consequences on the odd occasion (blasphemy – I know). The excessive and obsequious “deference” regularly afforded to findings of fact as it relates to credibility of complainants in sexual assault (and other trials), as re-affirmed in v. G.F., 2021 SCC 20, is simply a travesty and practically explicitly invites and endorses wrongful convictions en masse. For example, an appeal of a sexual assault conviction in which some of the complainant’s testimony was found to be concerning, troubling, questionable, and a little unsettling (exact words used by the trial judge – R. v Saddleback, 2020 ABPC 168, at paras. 59, 60, 71) was found to be “frivolous” at the bail stage (R v DRS, 2021 ABCA 171, para. 13) – full disclosure, I was counsel at both levels of court;
  4. Bad character evidence against accused continues to be downplayed or ignored by appellate courts (including the SCC). It would be nice if they would start taking it even slightly as seriously as similar “evidence” against a complainant (e.g. “myths,” “whacking the complainant”, etc.);
  5. Media – they also need to at least pretend to respect the presumption of innocence. They should not be allowed to regularly plaster the names, faces and details of allegations of presumptively innocent accused persons – the same way they are almost never allowed to do so regarding the complainant;
  6. Disclosure – defence should have access to the entire police file, not just the parts the police and/or Crown deem disclosable;
  7. Anything else?

I’ll add below LeBourdais’ excellent foreword to her book (I should add the book should be required reading for all first-year law students, Crowns, academics, and judges of all levels) and Justice Hall’s dissent on the 1967 SCC Reference – emphases added.

Foreword: what does it really mean when a judge, under the law, instructs the jurors at the end of a trial that the accuse does not have to prove his innocence because the onus of proof is on the prosecution and that if there is any ground for a reasonable doubt the accused must be acquitted?

It means that we, the people, through our legislatures and our law courts, believe in the fundamental right of every one of us to the protection of his personal freedom and respect for his integrity. It means that regardless of any apparent circumstances those who accuse him of breaking the law must prove their case by clearly incriminating evidence, or it is they who are the transgressors against a fellow human being, not he.

Most of us give very little thought to the manner in which justice is administered. We leave it to the police, the magistrates, the judges and others involved in judicial processes. We chuckle at the time-worn jokes that a jury consists of twelve men chosen to decide who has the better lawyer, or that penitentiaries are inhabited solely by men who declare that they were unjustly convicted. But a news story about a crime, followed by someone’s’ arrest, interests us only slightly, for we usually take it for granted that the accused is guilty or the police would not have arrested him. We thoughtlessly line ourselves up with the police as judge, jury and even executioner.

How often does the most important fact enter our heads: that the accused is legally an innocent man until after he has been proven guilty?

It is customary for a judge to inform a convicted man that he has been found guilty after a fair trial, and for anyone who writes about a trial to assume that it was fair. By definition a fair trial is presumably one in which both sides have had legal counsel and the court was objective and impartial. That in many trials the scales are heavily weighted against the accused is admitted by every serious student of the subject. Therefore the accused has in fact had to prove his innocence regardless of what the judge might duly have said about the law in his address to the jury at the end of a trial.

This book is written in the belief that the law is a good law and should always give to the accused the advantage inherent in the presumption of innocence and not just lip service to that right, so that right is not a horrible, grim game with the accused tossed back and forth like a ball amid barrages of melodramatics and rhetoric. If the onus of proof is on the prosecution from beginning to end, it is always the accusers who must justify themselves, not the accused.

Justice Hall’s dissent:

Having considered the case fully, I believe that the conviction should be quashed and a new trial directed. I take the view that the trial was not conducted according to law. Even the guiltiest criminal must be tried according to law. That does not mean that I consider Truscott guilty or innocent. […]

It was inevitable that this horrible crime would arouse the indignation of the whole community. It was inevitable too that suspicion should fall on Truscott, the last person known to have been seen with Lynne in the general vicinity of the place where her body was found. The law has formulated certain principles and safeguards to be applied in the trial of a person accused of a crime and has throughout the centuries insisted on these principles and safeguards being observed. In the great majority of cases adherence to these fundamentals is not difficult but in a case like the present one, when passions are aroused and the Court is dealing with a crime which cries out for vengeance, then comes the time of testing. It is especially at such a time that the judicial machinery must function objectively, devoid of inflammatory appeals, with the scales of justice held in balance.

A bad trial remains a bad trial. The only remedy for a bad trial is a new trial. Accordingly, the validity of the trial is, in my view, the dominant issue. With deference to contrary opinion, I see no purpose in erecting a massive and detailed structure of evidence, inference and argument confirming a verdict that has no lawful foundation upon which to rest. […]

by his failure to stop Crown Counsel when in his speech to the jury he advanced subtly worded inflammatory arguments which should have been repudiated on the spot […]

The errors and inflammatory arguments were too numerous and too integrated into the whole of the case as to be capable of coming within the exception provided for by that section. […]

I do not find it necessary to go in detail into the medical evidence given on the reference in this Court. This has been done in the majority opinion and is seen to be contradictory in the extreme. This much must, however, be said that it tends strongly to increase the doubt a juryman may honestly have had as to the time of death, if properly charged […]

The reference to ‘apathy’ in this passage by the learned judge was purely gratuitous. The word itself or a condition or conduct so describing Truscott does not appear in the evidence. It had been urged that his appearance and conduct were normal. The learned judge wrongly transposed ‘normal’ into ‘apathy’. The dictionary definition of ‘apathy’ is ‘insensibility to suffering or feeling’. ‘Apathy’ in relation to the crime in question here was a description highly damaging to the accused. […]

A trial judge has the right to express his own opinion or opinions in the course of his charge to the jury, but he has the duty to put the defence of the accused fairly to the jury. This he did not do on this branch of the case. […]

The consequences of Defence Counsel’s failure to object at the trial do not fall upon counsel, but upon the client, in this case a 14½ year old boy on trial for his life.

I appreciate that after nearly eight years many difficulties will be met with if a new trial is held both on the part of the Crown and on the part of the accused, but these difficulties are relatively insignificant when compared to Truscott’s fundamental right to be tried according to law.

Footnotes

[1] See THE TRIUMPH OF ISABEL LEBOURDAIS | Maclean’s | November 19 1966 (macleans.ca); also THE TRIAL OF ISABEL LEBOURDAIS | Maclean’s | June 4 1966 (macleans.ca) See also Zealots at error | Maclean’s | FEBRUARY 22,1993 (macleans.ca); Marlene film (IMDB); and “Until You Are Dead”: Steven Truscott’s Long Ride into History: Sher, Julian: 9780676973815: Books – Amazon.ca

[2] “At some point, LeBourdais considered writing a magazine article, “but it just became too big,” her son says. “It became a book” – a book every publisher in Canada turned down on the advice of their lawyers, who were afraid it would be perceived as an attack on the justice system and lead to being found in contempt of court.” – The Star, emphasis added. See also Real Justice: Fourteen and Sentenced to Death: The story of Steven Truscott, 2012, Bill Swan.

[3] See Kaufman Report, 2004, Executive Summary

[4] “The effect of the additional evidence which was heard by this Court, considered in its entirety, strengthens the view that the verdict of the jury ought not to be disturbed.” (emphasis added – also, nicely contradicted by the dissent)

[5] Oh, I see, the Chief Justice had begun his descent into alcoholism, at the time. That explains it (for 1 out of 8, anyway)!

[6] As I’ve suggested it continues to be. On a related note, I’m also enjoying this podcast (Not on the Record), and other similar material.

[7] So much for his confident trial certainty about a 30-minute window of time for the death to have occurred: “All findings are compatible with death within 2 hours of Lynne’s last meal. They are not incompatible with death at a later time (up to 12 hours or even longer)” – emphasis added, paras. 229-230 of 2007 Reference. So he may have been off by as many as 10 hours? Holy ****. Nothing to see here.

[8] See disturbing cases such as R. v. Prokofiew, 2012 SCC 49, where a 5-4 majority somehow found that commenting on accused’s failure to testify is not reversible error. Conversely, see People v. Hughes (2002) :: :: Supreme Court of California Decisions :: California Case Law :: California Law :: US Law :: Justia, emphasis added:

Pursuant to Griffin, it is error for a prosecutor to state that certain evidence is uncontradicted or unrefuted when that evidence could not be contradicted or refuted by anyone other than the defendant testifying on his or her own behalf. (People v. Murtishaw (1981) 29 Cal. 3d 733, 757-758 (Murtishaw); see also People v. Bradford (1997) 15 Cal. 4th 1229, [27 Cal. 4th 372] 1339 (Bradford) [“a prosecutor may commit Griffin error if he or she argues to the jury that certain testimony or evidence is uncontradicted, if such contradiction or denial could be provided only by the defendant, who therefore would be required to take the witness stand“].)

“What Worries Me (Most) About Sexual Assault Prosecutions”

I recently watched OsgoodePD’s 2021 Symposium on Sexual Assault available here – not inexpensive, but quite worthwhile. I enjoyed most of it. My favourite part was by far the “debate” between Professor Melanie Randall (“Randall”) and Alan Gold. Randall is a law professor out of Western, and Gold is a legendary criminal defence lawyer (and prolific criminal law author) based in Toronto. The format is essentially each gave a monologue of about 10 minutes about “what worries me about sexual assault prosecutions.” Each had very different views – both were very critical of what passes for our criminal justice system in the area of sexual assault, but for predictably very divergent reasons. I thought Randall’s screed was so useful in that it encapsulates everything that is actually wrong with our system. I suggest her monologue should be made freely and publicly available, and distributed as “Exhibit A” of everything wrong with criminal justice in Canada. I have to say, it was refreshing, as she was far clearer about her concerns than other academics, as I’ve mentioned here.

The main problem with her monologue is her continued insistence on the “pernicious myth” that women “routinely” lie about sexual assault – which is, in her view, not only empirically wrong but also conceptually incoherent (4:38). This is all I really need to know. Why is that a myth, and where is this clear social science evidence showing that it is empirically wrong? I’ll wait. In the meantime, here’s an excellent blog post casting doubt on her baseless assertion (also Wikipedia directly contradicts the claim). More importantly, it is utterly irreconcilable with the presumption of innocence. See how this approach is indirectly “debunked” nicely by the great Paciocco JA recently in R. v. JC, 2021 ONCA 131 as follows, paras. 88-89, emphasis added:

It is dangerous for a trial judge to find relevance in the fact that a complainant has exposed herself to the unpleasant rigours of a criminal trial. As this court said in R. v. G.R.A (1994), 1994 CanLII 8756 (ON CA), 35 C.R. (4th) 340 (Ont. C.A.), “the fact that a complainant pursues a complaint cannot be a piece of evidence bolstering her credibility. Otherwise it could have the effect of reversing the onus of proof”. Of interest, in R. v. K.(V.) (1991), 1991 CanLII 5761 (BC CA), 68 C.C.C. (3d) 18 (B.C.C.A.), at p. 35, Wood J.A. disapproved of such reasoning because it would itself rest in “gender-related stereotypical thinking” that sexual offence complainants are believable. Such reasoning would be a stereotype because it is a prejudicial generalization that would be available in every case.

The primary concern with using a complainant’s readiness to advance a criminal prosecution is that doing so cannot be reconciled with the presumption of innocence. The trial is to begin on the rebuttable premise that the accused is not guilty, not on the basis that the mere making of a criminal sexual assault allegation favours a finding of guilt: R. v. Stewart (1994), 1994 CanLII 7208 (ON CA), 90 C.C.C. (3d) 242 (Ont. C.A.), at p. 252, leave to appeal refused, [1994] S.C.C.A. No. 290; R. v. Nyznik, 2017 ONSC 4392, 350 C.C.C. (3d) 335, at para. 17.

In any event, even if her claim was both true and appropriate (for the sake of argument alone), it is a stereotype, generalization, and entirely unhelpful in the context of any particular complaint – whether these types of complaints are usually or generally true or not is entirely irrelevant, dangerous, and highly prejudicial to the possibility of a fair trial.

She goes on about “ritualized hostility and sustained attacks on credibility” – as against the complainant only, as if the accused (supposedly presumptively innocent) does not regularly have to endure extremely hostile attacks on his credibility by Crowns who – of course – never “whack” the defendant. Note bad character evidence – regularly and wrongly introduced against the accused and rarely if ever corrected on appeal (see R. v. Z.W.C., 2021 ONCA 116 and R v Stauth, 2021 ABCA 88 – contrary to R v JKED, 2021 ABCA 111). Note that this stuff is usually excused as “context” or “narrative” – which would never fly for s. 276 evidence about the complainant, as I’ve pointed out repeatedly (see here, for example).

She goes on about “repetitive, invasive questions, direct claims that lying, and host of other tactics of intimidation….” There is nothing wrong (generally) with repetitive questioning, other than this academic’s claim otherwise and (perhaps) bad U.S. TV contributing to this erroneous perception. Direct claims of lying are bad? I see – I’m sure the Crown usually accepts everything the accused claims on the stand without a grain of salt (insert sarcasm).

An interesting point she makes is that Judith Herman (?) states if one were intentionally setting up a system for harassing victims, it would look like what we have (paraphrasing). I don’t think Herman is correct, but if she is, maybe court is not a good option altogether. Perhaps the presumption of innocence itself is entirely incompatible with giving the required respect to complainants. Perhaps we should automatically convict (which is pretty close to what already occurs)? Maybe there should another way of investigating, prosecuting, defending, rehabilitating altogether? I don’t know, but I’m certainly open to ideas.

Note a respected lawyer’s recent, public comment that “Public confidence — to the extent that there is any — in the court’s ability to adequately manage sexual assault cases is so fragile as it is,” as I tweeted. Perhaps an entirely new system is required, and pretending to respect both the presumption of innocence and the dignity of the complainant (and of course, the “truth” that “victims” rarely – if ever – lie) is just not working? Note the telling comment of another prominent academic (now judge) that “we have to be as careful as we can to ensure that that price [of the presumption of innocence] is no greater than it has to be” (emphasis added, see here) – see also here. Something to think about for the Supreme Court (I will not discuss its latest atrocity in R. v. G.F., 2021 SCC 20 here, other than to link to my Twitter thread on it).

She continues about the “loss of confidence in our criminal justice system” – made popular through the #MeToo movement. Yes. It would be nice if our Courts (Supreme and otherwise), along with academics and practitioners, were less influenced by this stuff – to the direct detriment of the presumption of innocence.

At the risk of repeating myself, the presumption of innocence demands that we believe no witness or charge before trial. If her claim that people don’t lie about this stuff is true, there’s no point in running a trial, and the burden of proof is reversed from the get-go. This is exactly the problem, and one that appears to be entirely missed by these academics and arguably ideological courts (not that they haven’t been made aware of the problem – they simply refuse to acknowledge it, let alone deal with it). Note also that there is (theoretically, anyway) no initial presumption that a witness is telling the truth (R. v. Semple, 2015 ONCA 562, at para. 3).

She makes the very ironic point that law is saturated with psychological assumptions, yet lawyers are “psychologically illiterate”. She fails to note that some areas of law are also saturated with erroneous sociological assumptions – far more dangerous.

The presumption of innocence is hardly mentioned – except in the context that it should not require the presumption of lying on the complainant’s part.

Tellingly, she claims that debate in Parliament about advance notice (of complainant’s communications – s. 278) illustrates this “justice gap”!
She asks rhetorically, “How is argument for necessity of ambush at trial any different than claiming defence should have right to catch them in a lie?” It’s not! It’s “problematically predicated on assumption that SA complainants routinely lie” – maybe or maybe not, but they certainly sometimes lie. Your presumption that they never do is precisely what is problematic – especially if the presumption of innocence is not mere BS that judges go on about before convicting. My favourite part is perhaps 4:41 – “every reform on behalf of complainants is met with serious pushback from the defence bar” – if only!

She quotes Janine Benedet, “anytime accused argues consent, he is saying the complainant is a liar.” CORRECT! I thought the presumption of innocence was a thing – in some countries at some points in history, anyway. Of course, presumably, if the defence is it never happened, he’s also claiming the complainant’s a liar. I guess anything other than a quick, remorseful guilty plea – followed by a very harsh sentence to reflect denunciation and deterrence, is entirely inconsistent with her worldview?

This is blatant #MeToo. We should at least be honest – go straight to sentence. Don’t waste time, effort and your client’s funds banging your head against the wall (if you have the misfortune of being accused or defence counsel) by bringing a s. 276 application, a s. 278 “reverse disclosure” application, mounting any other kind of defence, or arguing about consent or honest but mistaken belief. Go to jail – go directly to jail. Hope for some leniency on a guilty plea. You are obviously guilty (by the nature of the charges) so stop wasting our time (at both trial and if you have the audacity to – gasp! – challenge your conviction on appeal) – an approach that is unfortunately mirrored at our appellate courts – most notably our highest Court in Ottawa. If you get killed in jail by virtue of being called a “skinner” that’s just too bad.

Alan Gold’s rebuttal is pretty solid, considering “the circumstances.” He points out that sexual assault laws are now ridiculously complicated, moreso than tax law. He raises specific concerns with the focus and laws themselves. He points out (at 4:50) that defence rarely questions the credibility of a complainant – merely her reliability – in other words, they rarely call her a liar. I don’t blame him for taking this defensive stance, but I think it’s wrong – credibility is usually the main issue, and being afraid to call the complainant a liar is one of the main problems I think I’ve addressed.

He points out the problem of assuming the conclusion (I think “affirming the consequent”?) when we assume that delay in calling police, for example, is indicative of trauma, when the event itself having occurred may be what’s at question. He also deals with relevance and specific stereotypes, as does Randall. He closes by pointing out that more education of the bar is needed – not incorrect, but it does not confront the actual problem (not that it’s an easy fix). The laws are a mess and are themselves the problem, and our society’s and profession’s refusal to deal with this fiasco is a bigger problem.

The Presumption of Guilt in Sexual Offence Trials in Canada

We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people.

― Martin Luther King Jr., Letter from a Birmingham Jail [King, Jr.]

I’ve been watching excellent seminars from Professor Sankoff recently. As always, incredible quality and value. As usual, I had some “aha” moments watching the videos. While listening to this excellent seminar (Sexual Assault: Consent and HMB Seminar), I noted the following:

How is “consent” in the context of a sexual assault trial determined? R. v. Ewanchuk, 1999 CanLII 711 (SCC) – a case I review here, noting that it is the worst decision in Canadian judicial history  – has established that it’s a subjective analysis – subjective to the complainant. It is not an objective (or “modified objective”) test. On one hand, it suggests the testimony of the complainant is the only thing that matters. On the other hand, it also suggests that words or actions of the complainant can affect the analysis of whether or not there was consent – essentially a subjective test, but one that is assessed by the trier of fact, so in that sense it is objective.

See the following paragraph from Ewanchuk (para. 29, emphasis added):

While the complainant’s testimony is the only source of direct evidence as to her state of mind, credibility must still be assessed by the trial judge, or jury, in light of all the evidence.  It is open to the accused to claim that the complainant’s words and actions, before and during the incident, raise a reasonable doubt against her assertion that she, in her mind, did not want the sexual touching to take place.  If, however, as occurred in this case, the trial judge believes the complainant that she subjectively did not consent, the Crown has discharged its obligation to prove the absence of consent.

In other words, the complainant’s assertion of non-consent needs to be assessed using the words and/or actions of the complainant – before and during (and likely after) the incident. That sounds perfectly reasonable to me. This appears to be a fair approach, and is one that is encouraged in cases like R. v. Roth, 2020 BCCA 240 (CanLII), Foster v. R., 2020 NBCA 7 (CanLII), (both mentioned in Professor Sankoff’s “Top 10 Cases from 2020” seminar, which he co-hosts with Prof. Penney), as well as academics like Sankoff, Dufraimont, Justice Paciocco, etc. So far, so good.

Then, see para. 31 – a mere two paragraphs later – of Ewanchuk (emphasis added):

Counsel for the respondent submitted that the trier of fact may believe the complainant when she says she did not consent, but still acquit the accused on the basis that her conduct raised a reasonable doubt.  Both he and the trial judge refer to this as “implied consent”.  It follows from the foregoing, however, that the trier of fact may only come to one of two conclusions:  the complainant either consented or not.  There is no third option.  If the trier of fact accepts the complainant’s testimony that she did not consent, no matter how strongly her conduct may contradict that claim, the absence of consent is established and the third component of the actus reus of sexual assault is proven.  The doctrine of implied consent has been recognized in our common law jurisprudence in a variety of contexts but sexual assault is not one of them.  There is no defence of implied consent to sexual assault in Canadian law.

This is likely the most problematic paragraph ever written by the Supreme Court of Canada. If the trier of fact accepts the complainant’s testimony of non-consent, then no matter how strongly her conduct contradicts that claim, absence of consent is established? Why on earth would the trial judge accept the claim if the conduct contradicts it? Especially if 2 paragraphs before, we said that conduct is assessed when determining consent? Surely both paragraphs can’t be right!

It reminds me of the great “Fiddler on the Roof” scene:

Rabbi’s pupil: He’s right, and he’s right. They can’t both be right!

Tevye: (Pause). You know, you are also right.

This paragraph (31) seems to suggest that the analysis is entirely subjective and conduct is entirely immaterial – again, of course, a direct contradiction to what it said a couple of paragraphs previously. This extremely problematic paragraph would appear to blatantly reverse (perhaps entirely obliterate) the burden of proof in a sexual assault case – if the complainant asserts no consent, nothing else matters. We seem to move very quickly from an approach that is “only concerned with the complainant’s perspective” and “purely subjective” (para. 27) to one that completely discounts any evidence contradicting this “perspective.”  This approach appears to be embraced by the Craig/Tanovich/Karakatsanis/L’Heureux-Dubé crowd. Of course, they’re technically no less correct than the para. 29 adherents, and this approach certainly seems to be more popular in this country than the para. 29 one. Given our Supreme Court’s recent concerning streak in sexual assault cases, it’s reasonable to expect this will continue.

Thankfully, excellent cases like R. v. Percy, 2020 NSCA 11 (CanLII) – also reviewed in the seminar (thank goodness the victim/wrongly accused and prosecuted individual in that case had a video of the encounter – otherwise he likely would have done a “pen stint”) – appear to apply para. 29, while many others (including the Crown’s position in Percy) seem to enthusiastically apply para. 31.

Further complicating the issue, Ewanchuk itself and subsequent cases appear to suggest that words or conduct of the complainant are relevant to honest but mistaken belief in consent only – not consent itself (to be clear, it’s not explicit in Ewanchuk, but it’s an available inference). This is highly problematic, and directly contradictory to para. 29 (but not para. 31, of course) of Ewanchuk. See R. v. Barton, 2019 SCC 33 (CanLII) (also mentioned in this excellent seminar), at para. 90, emphasis added:

For purposes of the mens rea, and specifically for purposes of the defence of honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent, “consent” means “that the complainant had affirmatively communicated by words or conduct her agreement to engage in [the] sexual activity with the accused” (Ewanchuk, at para. 49). Hence, the focus at this stage shifts to the mental state of the accused, and the question becomes whether the accused honestly believed “the complainant effectively said ‘yes’ through her words and/or actions” (ibid., at para. 47).

Relegating words or actions suggesting consent to honest but mistaken belief in consent greatly weakens the consent analysis, reverses the burden of proof, and puts the accused in a very difficult position overall. Essentially, the complainant’s version is accepted without question, and then we analyze whether or not the accused was clueless enough to miss the cues – however obvious they were. Note that conflating consent with honest but mistaken belief in consent was criticized in Foster.

Other important issues that are peripheral but very much related to this, include:

  1. 276 and myths/stereotypes (not that they’re the same thing)

What evidence is relevant to determining consent? The Crown (and SCC) typically want you to think nothing is relevant. The complainant should be taken at her (or his) word – full stop. This explains the trend to try and “hide behind” s. 276 on just about any exculpatory detail (I recently had a Crown successfully assert that a history with Child and Family Services was impermissible under s. 276 grounds! – I think he/she meant stereotypes). Myths and stereotypes are constantly being misapplied and misunderstood by courts – usually to the detriment of the accused (both myths about the accused and myths about the complainant). Of course, at the same time, the Crown typically has a field day introducing – whenever possible – bad character evidence of the accused (only for context and to explain delayed disclosure, of course), prior consistent statements, and much more. I discuss this here. This is, of course, extremely problematic, given the limitations placed on the accused resulting from both s. 276 and myths/stereotypes and the application and misapplication of both. Thankfully, recent decisions like Roth are starting to reverse the trend from bad cases like R. v A.R.D., 2017 ABCA 237 (CanLII) regarding myths/stereotypes – yet it’s too early to tell whether this will continue.

Prof. Sankoff also does a bang-up job on these (reviewed here).

  1. 278.92 – reverse disclosure provisions

The presumption of guilt can partly explain the reverse disclosure allowed in the recently-introduced s. 278.92 – if we automatically assume the complainant is truthful (perhaps despite or because of all evidence to the contrary), it follows that there shouldn’t be a problem with requiring reverse disclosure from the accused. After all, we’re merely giving effect to the complainant’s Charter rights, “evening the playing field”, helping to reverse the “low rate of conviction” and assisting with not demeaning and attacking the complainant – goals we all need to be very much supportive of. What could possibly go wrong?

Prof. Sankoff discusses s. 278.92 in detail in his Top 10 seminar under R. v J.J, 2020 BCSC 29 (CanLII), a direct Crown appeal of interlocutory Charter decision to the SCC. The provisions have been struck down in Alberta by Sanderman J. (Sankoff’s case) – R. v. J.S., [2019] A.J. No. 1639 [ABQB] – QuickLaw; subsequently followed in both R. v. Reddick, 2020 ONSC 7156 (CanLII) and R. v. D.L.B., 2020 YKTC 8 (CanLII). JJ only strikes down the notice provision – not the reverse disclosure aspect.

  1. Consent and capacity to consent

Note R. v. J.A., 2011 SCC 28 (CanLII) – an influential case from the SCC. In that case, “advance consent” was deemed to be meaningless, despite a strong dissent. It overturned the decision of the ONCA in R. v. J.A., 2010 ONCA 226 (CanLII). The majority of the SCC ruled that a person cannot perform sexual acts on a person who is unconscious even if the “victim” gave consent in advance to that activity. In that case, the complainant recanted her original allegation that she had consented in advance – again, deemed irrelevant because her consent is deemed meaningless. See para. 46, emphasis added:

The only relevant period of time for the complainant’s consent is while the touching is occurring: Ewanchuk, at para. 26. The complainant’s views towards the touching before or after are not directly relevant. An offence has not occurred if the complainant consents at the time but later changes her mind (absent grounds for vitiating consent). Conversely, the actus reus has been committed if the complainant was not consenting in her mind while the touching took place, even if she expressed her consent before or after the fact.

This greatly downplays the importance of the complainant’s views “before or after” the contact, which is supportive of the Crown’s common and offensive position that any conduct before or after the contact is irrelevant – on s. 276 and other grounds. Of course, keeping anything related to the accused (including, but not limited to, how many times he refused to take out the garbage) entirely relevant to the credibility analysis. While the point may be technically correct for the purpose of this case – where the complainant was unconscious as part of consensual sexual activity – it is dangerous in other contexts, where behaviour before and after can be very helpful in determining credibility of complainant’s assertion of non-consent – of course, assuming we don’t automatically believe the complainant. The case is also troubling for its actual ratio, but that’s a matter for another day.

The issue of capacity to consent is also extensively discussed by Prof. Sankoff – often in the context of R. v. G.F., 2019 ONCA 493 (CanLII) – SCC to release its judgment (hopefully lengthier than a paragraph) in the near future; Her Majesty the Queen v. GF, et al., 2020 CanLII 227 (SCC) – and a common error of courts to conflate incapacity with intoxication, for instance.

Note the awful language in JA, at para. 65, emphasis added:

In the end, we are left with this. Parliament has defined sexual assault as sexual touching without consent. It has dealt with consent in a way that makes it clear that ongoing, conscious and present consent to “the sexual activity in question” is required. This concept of consent produces just results in the vast majority of cases. It has proved of great value in combating the stereotypes that historically have surrounded consent to sexual relations and undermined the law’s ability to address the crime of sexual assault. In some situations, the concept of consent Parliament has adopted may seem unrealistic. However, it is inappropriate for this Court to carve out exceptions when they undermine Parliament’s choice. In the absence of a constitutional challenge, the appropriate body to alter the law on consent in relation to sexual assault is Parliament, should it deem this necessary.

Perhaps our sexual assault laws are good enough because they produce “just results in the vast majority of cases” (a generous estimate, in any event)? It would appear so. The “slim minority” of wrongful convictions are clearly just the cost of being male “doing business”.

  1. “Today, not only does no mean no, but only yes means yes. Nothing less than positive affirmation is required.”

This problematic line from Karakatsanis J. in R. v. Goldfinch, 2019 SCC 38 (CanLII) at para. 44 suggests that only clear words (not conduct or more ambiguous words) constitute consent. This is contrary to para. 29 (again, not para. 31) of Ewanchuk. It will inevitably be applied by trial courts.

  1. Sentencing

R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9 (CanLII) is a decision that I review here and that Prof. Sankoff includes in his Top 10. While noting that sentences for sexual offences against children must increase (e.g. para. 100), it should not be taken as direction to decrease or as a bar against increasing sentences against offences against adults, at para. 118, emphasis added:

We would emphasize that nothing in these reasons should be taken either as a direction to decrease sentences for sexual offences against adult victims or as a bar against increasing sentences for sexual offences against adult victims. As this Court recently held, our understanding of the profound physical and psychological harm that all victims of sexual assault experience has deepened (Goldfinch, at para. 37). In jurisdictions that have erroneously equated sexual violence against children with sexual violence against adults, courts should correct this error by increasing sentences for sexual offences against children — not by decreasing sentences for sexual offences against adults.

I’d agree that our understanding of profound harm has deepened. I’d also posit that our understanding of wrongful convictions and due process has significantly weakened – despite countless examples of wrongful convictions – many of them (such as Truscott) in the emotionally-charged arena of sexual assault. Perhaps it’s time to “deepen” our commitment to make our sexual assault laws even slightly fair to an accused person?

Articles on rape myths, etc.

Given the recent awareness of wrongful convictions (triggered by the recent discovery of who the likely perpetrator was in the wrongful conviction case of Guy Morin), I thought I’d have a look at articles about sexual assault.

I’ve recently been able to access criminal law articles through WestLaw. I’m excited to read many articles I’ve been meaning to get my hands on, including (among others) Paciocco’s “The Perils and Potential of Prior Consistent Statements: Let’s Get It Right” (WestLaw). Naturally, I also sought articles on rape myths, s. 276 and other sexual assault laws. I was not disappointed – I found a wealth of articles, many of which were critical of our sexual assault laws (of course, these are not typically cited alongside Craig, Tanovich, etc. by our Supreme Court).

I noticed a 2015 article by Nathan Gorham about R v Schmaltz, 2015 ABCA 4, a case I comment on here and here, “Schmaltz: The need for caution when limiting relevant defence cross-examination in sexual assault cases,” available here, pp. 312-314 (all footnotes omitted):

The decision is controversial. Professor E. Sheehy promptly called for it to be appealed to the Supreme Court in order to clarify the role and responsibility of trial judges to intervene during cross-examination, “for the benefit of women who experience sexual assault,” Professor D. Tanovich argues in a forthcoming paper that the case displays the improper use of stereotypical assumptions regarding sexual assault and a “whack the complainant” strategy. Professor J. Benedet notes that “[a]ll of the lines of questioning at issue in this case have the potential to trade on one or more of these rape myths.”

Professor D. Stuart, on the other hand, points out that “[w]hen a judge asserts that something is a myth or false stereotype the factual inquiry into relevance is pre-empted.” I would agree and add that caution is generally required before intervening in defence cross-examination that is relevant and otherwise admissible out of concern that the questioning might incidentally impact on rejected rape myths. Sexual assault complainants, of course, have a right to be treated with dignity, respect and fairness throughout the criminal process. They must not be demeaned, harassed, humiliated or subjected to illegitimate or irrelevant questioning during cross-examination. That said, Schmaltz is an example of how trial fairness might be undermined through unwarranted concerns regarding rape myths. The defence right to cross-examine “without significant or unwarranted constraint” is protected by the right to full answer and defence and the presumption of innocence under sections 7 and 11(d) of the Charter. The right to cross-examine is particularly important in cases like Schmaltz where credibility is the central issue at trial. Generally speaking, where credibility questions posed of a sexual assault complainant are relevant, but might incidentally and unintentionally impact on rape myths, the cross-examination is presumptively admissible. In Shearing , Justice Binnie, writing for the majority, explained that “[u]nder Seaboyer and Osolin, the default position is that the defence is allowed to proceed with its cross-examination.” Relevant and otherwise admissible defence evidence is only excluded where the prejudice substantially outweighs the probative value.

I also read a 2017 article by Lisa Dufraimont about R. v A.R.D., 2017 ABCA 237 (CanLII) – appeal to SCC dismissed (a case I discuss here and here): “A.R.D.: Complainants’ After-the-Fact Conduct in Sexual Assault Cases” (WestLaw):

The majority judgment in A.R.D. clearly cautions trial judges against relying on rigid expectations about how complainants should behave. This aspect of the judgment is valuable, consistent with other recent appellate decisions, and largely uncontroversial. However, the majority judgment in A.R.D. also holds that the absence of avoidant behaviour by a sexual assault complainant is “logically irrelevant”. Since relevance is a precondition to admissibility, this might suggest that the complainant’s after-the-fact conduct in relation to the accused is inadmissible (even always inadmissible). It might even be taken to suggest that triers of fact are precluded from drawing any inferences favourable to the defence from the after-the-fact conduct of complainants. These suggestions arguably go too far, since they overlook the possibility that, like delays in disclosure, other features of the complainant’s after-the-fact conduct may have legitimate probative value in the factual mosaic of a particular case.

In the context of a criminal justice system premised on the presumption of innocence, we should be wary of suggestions that certain kinds of evidence can ground inferences favourable to the Crown but can never ground inferences favourable to the defence. […]

Also, see Don Stuart: “Barton: Sexual Assault Trials Must be Fair not Fixed”, a 2019 article (WestLaw) critiquing R v Barton, 2017 ABCA 216 (CanLII) (upheld in R. v. Barton, 2019 SCC 33 (CanLII)) – article cited in appellant factum, and note harsh criticism of Fraser CJ and the Alberta Court of Appeal by appellate counsel, despite general approval (and wholesale acceptance by a more-or-less unanimous Supreme Court) of the Court of Appeal’s decision.

The Court’s pro complainant bias

Although the Court of Appeal shows considerable mastery of sexual assault law nuances there are, to this commentator, signs of bias against rights of accused. The Court states that an accused is entitled to a fair not a fixed trial. At points I see the Court as trying to fix and strengthen laws to make sexual assault convictions more likely. I offer some examples. […]

Recall too that our rape shield laws since Seaboyer are unique in applying equally to prior sexual conduct with the accused. This is a principle that Professor Galvin, the author otherwise relied on in Seaboyer, did not favour, has been rejected by the House of Lords in R. v. A. and is not the law in the United States. That leaves conscientious and fair-minded Canadian judges in a quandary where prior sexual history with the accused seems obviously probative […]

In a 2009 paper by Don Stuart, “Twin Myth Hypotheses in Rape Shield Laws are Too Rigid and Darrach is Unclear” (available here, pp. 48-51):

Unlike any country in the Western world, this protection applies, ever since a further assertion by McLachlin J. in Seaboyer, equally to prior sexual history with the accused. […]

Admitting evidence is “part of the context” seems very like the “part of the narrative” ruse sometimes resorted to bypass unwelcome evidentiary rules. The real problem is that the twin myth hypotheses are too rigid. Professor David Paciocco suggests judges read them down to forbid only general stereotypical inferences and to allow inferences specific to the case. This was the approach taken by Fuerst J. in Temertzoglou. This solution is rather like that adopted in the Supreme Court in R. v. Handy for similar fact evidence: pattern evidence of the accused can exceptionally be admitted as evidence of specific rather than general propensity. The Paciocco analysis found favour in lower courts but was not squarely addressed by the Supreme Court in Darrach. The Supreme Court further speaks of Parliament having clarified that the sexual nature of the previous activity can never be referred to. This seems bizarre. It is only the sexual nature of the prior relationship evidence that could give it any probative force.

In R. v. A.(no.2) the House of Lords somehow read Darrach as not applying rape shield principles equally to prior sexual history with the accused. The Law Lords unanimously declared that new U.K. rape shield laws offended fair trial rights in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in applying with equal force to prior sexual history with the accused. Lord Steyn, for example reasoned as follows:

  • As a matter of common sense, a prior sexual relationship between the complainant and the accused may, depending on the circumstances, be relevant to the issue of consent. It is a species of prospectant evidence which may throw light on the complainant’s state of mind. It cannot, of course, prove that she consented on the occasion in question. Relevancy and sufficiency are different things…It is true that each decision to engage in sexual activity is always made afresh. On the other hand, the mind does not usually blot out all memories. What one has engaged on in the past may influence what choice one makes on a future occasion. Accordingly, a prior relationship between a complainant and an accused is sometimes relevant to what decision was made on the particular occasion.

Rape shield law protection in the United States presently do not extend to prior sexual history with the accused. Following the Kobe Bryant rape trial acquittal Dean Michelle Anderson has called for restrictions on such evidence. But she accepts it as a given that

  • prior negotiations between the complainant and the defendant regarding the specific acts at issue or customs and practices about those acts should be admissible. Those negotiations, customs, and practices between the parties reveal their legitimate expectations on the incident in question.

Until the Supreme Court speaks more clearly on this issue my sympathy is with trial judges attempting to ensure that sexual assault trials are fair to both the accused and the accuser.

R. v. Barton, 2019 SCC 33 (CanLII) is also critiqued by Lisa Dufraimont in a 2019 article entitled “R. v. Barton: Progress on Myths and Stereotypes in Sexual Assault” (WestLaw) as follows:

Remaining Silent on Permissible Inferences

The Court’s focus in Barton on specifying prohibited inferences stands in contrast to its relative silence on the question of evidence and inferences permissible to assist the defence. In the context of the defence of mistaken belief in communicated consent, Moldaver J. provided a lengthy explanation of situations where the defence does not arise but offered only a brief discussion of evidence that could support the defence. With respect to the evidence of the deceased’s prior sexual activity, Moldaver J. explicitly left the question of admissibility to be decided by the trial judge at the new trial. He explained that because the mandatory procedural requirements were not met at the original trial, “it would be both unwise and practically unworkable for this Court to speculate about what prior sexual activity evidence would have been admitted, and for what purposes, had a s. 276 hearing been held.” Consequently, while the judgment contains a detailed analysis of the impermissible uses of sexual history evidence, it includes almost no discussion of the kinds of inferences that can legitimately be drawn from evidence of a complainant’s other sexual activity. The overall effect is arguably unbalanced; indeed, a casual observer might come away from reading Barton with the impression that no evidence of the complainant’s other sexual activity could be admitted for any legitimate purpose, either in general or in the specific case. This sense of imbalance is unfortunate in the context of s. 276, where the Supreme Court has recognized that admitting the evidence is sometimes necessary to uphold the accused’s constitutional right to full answer and defence.

Moreover, by failing to discuss the permissible lines of argument for the defence, the Supreme Court missed an opportunity to provide guidance on what is arguably the most challenging part of eliminating myths and stereotypes from sexual assault trials: separating the permissible and impermissible uses of the same evidence. Examples of this challenge abound. For instance, as Moldaver J. noted in Barton, there is no defence of “implied consent” and consent cannot be “implied by the circumstances” where the complainant did not voluntarily agree, in her mind, to the sexual touching at the time that it occurred. However, it would be a mistake to conclude that the “circumstances” are irrelevant to the factual question of consent, or that the trier of fact is bound to accept a sexual assault complainant’s testimonial claim of non-consent. As the Supreme Court recognized R. v. Ewanchuk,

  • While the complainant’s testimony is the only source of direct evidence as to her state of mind, credibility must still be assessed by the trial judge, or jury, in light of all the evidence. It is open to the accused to claim that the complainant’s words and actions, before and during the incident, raise a reasonable doubt against her assertion that she, in her mind, did not want the sexual touching to take place.

Thus, evidence of the circumstances surrounding an alleged sexual assault can ground both permissible and impermissible inferences on the issue of consent. In this context and in sexual assault cases more broadly, trial judges would benefit from further appellate guidance on how to distinguish legitimate lines of reasoning from prohibited myths and stereotypes.

For a real “oldie-but goodie” see “From the Far West: The Erosion of the Presumption of Innocence”, a 1989 article in For the Defence, by Richard C.C. Peck, Q.C. (Vol. 10, no. 4, p. 11, December, 1989 – QuickLaw):

Included in the presumption of innocence is the necessity that the trial of the accused be one that is manifestly fair. Yet is it fair to put someone on trial for an offence where the cross-examination of the chief witness for the Crown is greatly restricted? The is precisely the result of s. 276 of the Criminal Code. Proponents of this legislation argue that a complainant’s prior sexual conduct is irrelevant to the charge before the Court and that cross-examination in this area amounts to nothing more than a scurrilous attack on the complainant’s character aimed at demeaning the witness in the eyes of the trier of fact for the sole purpose of reducing his or her credibility. It is conceded that in a small minority of cases this is so, but the unfortunate consequences of this legislation are such as to effectively prohibit an accused from cross-examining where there is reason to believe that a valid defence may arise from the cross-examination. Although the Criminal Code creates exceptions to this limitation on cross-examination these exceptions are seldom permitted. In the result the legislation has created an evil greater than the cure it was aimed at. It has also had the effect of creating a special class of witness subject to protections from cross-examination not enjoyed by other witnesses.

Put simply, we can — and must — do better. With forthcoming reasons expected from our Supreme Court in Her Majesty the Queen v. G.F., et al., 2020 CanLII 227 (SCC), perhaps it can show us all that it is capable of more than just dangerous rhetoric when it comes to sexual assault law.

Prior consistent statements, bad character, s. 276, rape myths and conviction rates

I thought I’d address some common problems in litigation of sexual offence charges. The most common problems, I’d suggest, are prior consistent statements, bad character evidence, and a presumption of truthfulness (explicitly stated or otherwise) being ascribed to the complainant. I’ll discuss these – along with concerns about s. 276 and conviction rates – below.

Prior consistent statements

The law on this is confusing and constantly misunderstood. The idea is that prior consistent statements of a witness are not supposed to be used by the trier of fact to support the credibility of the witness. How about if inconsistencies are an issue during cross-examination of the complainant? R. v. N.W., 2018 ONSC 774 (CanLII) suggests it’s still not allowed; also see here. Note the improper use of prior consistent statements noted in the following recent appellate decisions: R. v. G.J.S., 2020 ONCA 317 (CanLII); R. v. D.K., 2020 ONCA 79 (CanLII); R. v. A.V., 2020 ONCA 58 (CanLII); and R. v. A.S., 2020 ONCA 229 (CanLII).

However, perhaps this is unfair? Inconsistencies can be used to show a lack of credibility and/or reliability of the witness (e.g. inconsistencies in witnesses’ statements can be a sign of poor reliability – per Brown and Witkin’s 2nd edition of Prosecuting and defending sexual offence cases, 2020 – Alberta Law Libraries e-book link, at pp. 205-6.), so why can’t consistencies be used to show the reverse? I think it’s fair, as we’re trying to be fair to the accused, and the accused is generally the one who gains by the rule against prior consistent statements. In any event, the above cases appear to state that this is the law. If it is a “one-way street”, that’s not necessarily problematic.

However, it appears that some courts have struggled with this concept – of the defence having it “both ways”. See R v Griffin, 2018 ABCA 277 (CanLII):

[33] Neither does the record support the appellant’s argument that the trial judge used Taylor’s prior consistent statements to bolster her credibility. As stated in R v Lavallee, 2015 ABCA 288 at paragraph 22:
  • The defence cannot have it both ways. It cannot argue at trial that a complainant’s various accounts of what happened are inconsistent, and therefore, unreliable – compelling the court to look at them – and then argue on appeal, once this argument has been rejected, that the court erred by considering the consistency of the statements for the purposes of assessing the reliability of the complainant’s evidence.

I’m frankly confused.

Bad character evidence

Another issue is bad character evidence of the accused. The Crown might be tempted to lead evidence of a history of rape by the accused toward the complainant, or a variety of other negative background details (i.e. never helped around the house, never had a job, didn’t take out garbage, didn’t pay bills, bad father, etc.). These would be helpful in terms of the context of the relationship. However, many (if not most) of these types of details should be inadmissible as bad character evidence. Further, some of this (e.g. history of rape) is also evidence of prior sexual activity, which would be barred if led by the defence absent a s. 276 application – of course, no two-way street there, as the Crown is able to adduce this evidence – pre-Barton, anyway (constitutional problem right there, methinks).

In terms of bad character evidence, see the classic Paciocco/Stuesser text: The Law of Evidence, Irwin Law, Toronto, 2015 (7th edition) – Alberta Law Libraries e-book; 8th edition recently released, at (pp. 56-57):

The Exclusion of General Bad Character about the Accused
The Crown cannot call general bad character evidence, being evidence that shows only that the accused is the sort of person likely to commit the offence charged. This rule of exclusion is bolstered by a “prohibited inference.” Even where evidence is admissible for other purposes, if it incidentally exposes the general bad character of the accused, the trier of fact is prohibited by law from inferring that the accused may be guilty because he is the sort of person likely to commit the offence charged .
Naturally, in a criminal prosecution, the Crown can prove the conduct being prosecuted no matter how badly this may reflect on the character of the accused. What the Crown cannot do is lead “extrinsic evidence” – evidence about the accused’s behaviour on other occasions or about his general character – “simply to  show that the accused is the sort of person likely to commit the offence charged.” In R. v. Handy, the leading Canadian case on character evidence, Justice Binnie explained this “primary rule of exclusion, “one of the most deeply rooted and jealously guarded principles of our criminal law,” as follows:
  • Proof of general disposition is a prohibited purpose. Bad character is not an offence known to law. Discreditable disposition or character evidence at large, creates nothing but “moral prejudice” and the Crown is not entitled to ease its burden by stigmatizing the accused as a bad person.
While logically it may be easier to believe that a person of bad character would commit the offence charged – that someone who has burgled before would burgle again – evidence of general disposition is apt to add more heat than light. The trier of fact may convict not because of the natural strength of this kind of evidence, but as a reaction to the discreditable, contemptible, or stigmatizing character of the accused. For these reasons, in spite of its modest relevance, “[i]t is trite law that ‘character evidence [called by the Crown] which shows only that the accused is the type of person likely to have committed the offence in question is inadmissible.” Where the Crown seeks to lead evidence, including by cross-examining the accused, about his extrinsic  conduct or his character traits or practices, it is therefore essential to ask the threshold question of whether “the proposed evidence [is] discreditable to the accused ?” If it is, the rule applies. “Bad character evidence” is determined by asking whether the ordinary person would disapprove of the conduct or character revealed. Such conduct or character need not be criminal to engage this rule. Discreditable evidence includes any conduct or information about the accused that others are likely to find to be morally objectionable or apt to demonstrate that he has a contemptible or reprehensible character, and can include activities such as watching pornographic movies or engaging in phone sex. It even extends beyond this to include proof of a stigmatizing condition such as mental illness or alcohol abuse. Historically, it extended to same sex preference but given current attitudes, such evidence should fall outside of the bad character evidence rule, just as evidence of marital infidelity after separation now does.

See also the words of Mitchell J. in R. v. A.B.A., 2018 ONSC 2198 (CanLII), at paras. 30-31:

[…]Mr. A.B.A. admitted to suggestions by Crown counsel that he was of poor, or at the very least, low moral character.  Character assassination does not prove his guilt nor does it make him more likely to have sexually assaulted S.B.

Apparently however, this is allowed for “narrative” or “context” when damaging to accused – obviously not for complainant, though, in the s. 276 context. See R. v. F., D.S., 1999 CanLII 3704 (ON CA). Even then, however, require application and limiting instructions to the jury regarding the specific nature of the inferences allowed to be deduced from the evidence. Similarly, R. v. F.(J.E.), 1993 CanLII 3384 (ON CA), which also deals with prior consistent statements, has this to say about bad character evidence:

With respect to this issue, the appellant submits that the evidence of the appellant’s physical abuse of the complainant’s mother was inadmissible. This evidence was clearly admissible because it was witnessed by the complainant and was one reason given by her as justifying her fear of the appellant and her resultant silence about his abuse to her. There should, however, have been a limiting instruction to the jury that this evidence should not be relied upon as proof that the appellant was the sort of person who would commit the offence charged and on that basis infer that the appellant was in fact guilty: see R. v. B.(F.F.), 1993 CanLII 167 (SCC), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 697 at pp. 707-08, 79 C.C.C. (3d) 112 at p. 119.

It appears that this evidence is inadmissible unless specifically for permitted purposes, with appropriate limiting instructions. I’ll admit that I’m confused on this issue, as well.

Rape myths

In a problematic decision – R. v. A.B.A., 2019 ONCA 124 (CanLII), the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned a very solid fact-driven acquittal based on what it perceived to be reliance on rape myths, at para. 17:

The trial judge then went on to explain why she did not believe the complainant, applying the stereotypical views about how victims of sexual assault should behave which have been described above. The trial judge’s determination that she believed the respondent was inextricably linked to her assessment of the complainant’s credibility, which itself was fundamentally affected by legal error.

In yet another disturbing overturning of a solid fact-driven acquittal, the Alberta Court of Appeal found in R v ADG, 2015 ABCA 149 (CanLII), at para. 33:

No inference should be drawn regarding a complainant’s credibility that is based on assumptions about how a victim of sexual assault is supposed to react to the assault. The Supreme Court of Canada has made clear that sexual assault cases should be decided “without resort to folk tales about how abuse victims are expected by people who have never suffered abuse to react to the trauma”: R v Shearing, 2002 SCC 58 at para 121, [2002] 3 SCR 33. There is no inviolable rule on how victims of sexual assault will behave: R v DD, 2000 SCC 43 at para 63, [2000] 2 SCR 275.  It cannot be assumed that sexual assault victims will react to abuse in any objectively identifiable way. Findings of credibility should not be affected by the timing of disclosure alone – that is, affected by a comparison between a complainant’s disclosure and the disclosure of a hypothetical ‘objectively reasonable’ victim.

For yet another disturbing overturning a solid fact-driven acquittal (of an unreported decision, reviewed here), which of course, led to serious consequences for the accused and the judge (both of whom I’d categorize as victims in this case), see R v Wagar, 2015 ABCA 327 (CanLII).

Also, see the downright wrong analysis, in yet another overturning of an acquittal (an unreported decision, hence challenging to assess how poor the appellate court’s thought process otherwise was) – R. v A.R.D., 2017 ABCA 237 (CanLII) – appeal to SCC dismissed (para. 39, emphasis added):

The more important question is what, if anything, can evidence of a lack of avoidant behaviour by a complainant tell a trier of fact about a sexual assault allegation? The answer is simple—nothing.

Note also the strong rhetoric in para. 9:

To be clear, reliance on a stereotype to found an assessment of credibility bearing on reasonable doubt is impermissible—it is an error of law. Accordingly, reasonable doubt is not a shield for appellate review if that doubt is informed by stereotypical and therefore prejudicial reasoning. Similarly, to suggest that stereotypical thinking is merely logic or common sense is a licence for it to continue unmasked and unabated. That is why, as a matter of law, this type of reasoning must not be insulated from appellate review.

See the far less problematic approach in the very recently released R. v. Roth, 2020 BCCA 240 (CanLII), at para. 130:

However, this does not mean that the evidence surrounding the driver’s attendance at the home, including the complainant’s conduct during that interaction, was not open for consideration in the credibility assessment and the trial judge was obliged to steer away from it.  The risk of myths and stereotypes distorting a judge’s fact‑finding or reasoning process does not prohibit use of a complainant’s behaviour for all analytical purposes (assuming the evidence surrounding that behaviour is properly before the court). Although a piece of evidence may carry the potential for impermissible reasoning, it may also have a permissible role to play as a circumstance to consider in assessing the evidence as a whole, in the context of the case’s particular “factual mosaic”: R. v. D.(D.), 2000 SCC 43 at para. 65; Kiss at paras. 101–102.  In my view, what A.R.D. and like cases warn against is the improper use of this type of evidence, not any use at all.

This is a rather “generous” interpretation of ARD. My reading of ARD suggests that it absolutely warns against any use of this evidence – per para. 39, above.

Roth then quotes Dufraimont – thankfully, not Craig or Tanovich. I cite Dufraimont here, in the context of her critique of Craig, and her article can be found here. Dufraimont is more accurate than Craig, but hardly as clear as I’d like, given the popularity of “butchering” the law in this area, as I’ve noted extensively in this post and past posts (para. 131):

On this point, I agree with the comments of professor Lisa Dufraimont in “Myth, Inference and Evidence in Sexual Assault Trials”, (2019) 44 Queen’s L.J. 316 at 353:

Criminal courts … carry the heavy responsibility of ensuring that every accused person has a fair trial.  Subject to the rules of evidence and the prohibition of particular inferences, this requires that the defence generally be permitted to bring forward all evidence that is logically relevant to the material issues. Repudiating myths and stereotypes means rejecting certain discriminatory lines of reasoning, but it does not make whole categories of evidence irrelevant or inadmissible.  Indeed, sweeping prohibitions that would rule out any consideration of particular forms of evidence are avoided as inconsistent with the accused’s right to make full answer and defence and with our overall approach to finding facts.  Outside the prohibited lines of reasoning identified as myths, relevance remains an elastic concept that leaves a wide scope for reasoning from logic and human experience. [Emphasis added; internal references omitted.]

Even better is R. v. J.M., 2018 ONSC 344 (CanLII), wherein Justice Harris says overgeneralization is the problem – but the evidence is not inadmissible; at para. 67 (underlining added)”:

The legal position with respect to delays in disclosure dealt with by the Supreme Court in R. v. D. (D.), 2000 SCC 43, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 275 and as recognized in A.R.D. at para. 55 is analogous. Delays do not automatically count against the complainant’s credibility. This is a serious error of law and is founded on stereotypical thinking. A judge must appreciate the psychology and circumstances that may lead to delayed disclosure. In D. (D.) at para. 65, it was said, and the comments apply equally to association evidence, the reasons for delayed disclosure “are many and at least include embarrassment, fear, guilt, or a lack of understanding and knowledge.” A delay can, however, undoubtedly damage a complainant’s credibility, particularly when disclosure is made coincident with the impetus of a motive to fabricate.

Note also Paciocco’s text (pp. 534-5, emphasis added):

This does not mean that proof relating to a delay in complaining will necessarily be irrelevant and inadmissible. There may be circumstances in the particular case that make it reasonable to expect that had the sexual assault occurred, the complainant would have said so earlier. Where this is so, it remains proper to cross-examine the complainant about the failure to make a timely complaint. […]

S. 276 and conviction rates

In R. v. Seaboyer; R. v. Gayme, 1991 CanLII 76 (SCC), the majority of the Supreme Court struck down s. 276 which – at the time – excluded any evidence of prior sexual activity of the complainant. Apparently, the impugned provisions were in place for 8 years at that point. The majority of the SCC realized (after nearly a decade, anyway) that this was a major problem in terms of trial fairness to the accused. Unfortunately, the majority only struck it down to the extent that it had been a blanket exclusion – it subsequently still required a voir dire to determine the purpose of the evidence and to allow the judge to determine whether the evidence was problematic due to the “twin myths”. Parliament had the sense to adopt this revised version in its reworked version of s. 276 in 1992 rather than allow s. 276 to disappear like other archaic legislation, which is largely what we continue to be stuck with today. This is better than what had previously been the law, but it remains highly problematic. Why is all of this evidence presumptively inadmissible until the accused can prove that it’s necessary? Why not have no such rule, and simply require the judge to exclude the evidence if it appears to be supportive of the twin myths? Kind of how “myths and stereotypes” are supposed to be approached – carefully, but evidence that there was a delay in disclosure is neither presumptively inadmissible nor irrelevant.

In practice, Crowns and courts typically object strenuously to any defence-led evidence about the sexual relationship of the accused and complainant – even when it’s obviously for context only. Context appears to be necessary in every other trial – just not defence-led evidence that relates to history of a sexual relationship. Of course, if Crown wants to lead this evidence (and they often do), s. 276 does not bar them from doing so (note ss. 2 of s. 276 in the Criminal Code: “evidence shall not be adduced by or on behalf of the accused”) – although Barton says that they cannot. Seaboyer and s. 276 continue to be highly problematic. Of course, L’Heureux-Dubé’s dissent in Seaboyer was that the blanket exclusion was acceptable, and her problematic approach to criminal law (evidenced clearly in that case) contributed to wrecking the law in this country for more than a decade (e.g. Ewanchuk, Osolin, O’Connor, etc.) and into the foreseeable future.

Later, see R. v. Darrach, 2000 SCC 46 (CanLII), at para. 69:

The right to make full answer and defence, moreover, does not provide a right to cross-examine an accuser.

WTF? Note the majority in R. v. Osolin, 1993 CanLII 54 (SCC):

(1) Cross-examination as a Fundamental Aspect of a Fair Trial
There can be no question of the importance of cross-examination. It is of essential importance in determining whether a witness is credible. Even with the most honest witness cross-examination can provide the means to explore the frailties of the testimony. For example, it can demonstrate a witness’s weakness of sight or hearing. It can establish that the existing weather conditions may have limited the ability of a witness to observe, or that medication taken by the witness would have distorted vision or hearing. Its importance cannot be denied. It is the ultimate means of demonstrating truth and of testing veracity. Cross-examination must be permitted so that an accused can make full answer and defence. The opportunity to cross-examine witnesses is fundamental to providing a fair trial to an accused. This is an old and well established principle that is closely linked to the presumption of innocence. See R. v. Anderson (1938), 1938 CanLII 195 (MB CA), 70 C.C.C. 275 (Man. C.A.); R. v. Rewniak (1949), 1949 CanLII 358 (MB CA), 93 C.C.C. 142 (Man. C.A.); Abel v. The Queen (1955), 1955 CanLII 473 (QC CA), 115 C.C.C. 119 (Que. Q.B.); R. v. Lindlau (1978), 1978 CanLII 2366 (ON CA), 40 C.C.C. (2d) 47 (Ont. C.A.). The importance of the right to cross-examine was well expressed by the Court in the reasons of Ritchie J. in Titus v. The Queen, 1983 CanLII 49 (SCC), [1983] 1 S.C.R. 259, at pp. 263-64. There he wrote:
  • I think it essential to stress the purpose for which the cross- examination is permitted, namely, in order that the defence may explore to the full all factors which might expose the frailty of the evidence called by the prosecution. That the accused as he stands in the prisoner’s box on trial for murder is deemed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is one of the fundamental presumptions inherent in the common law and as such the accused is entitled to employ every legitimate means of testing the evidence called by the Crown to negative that presumption and in my opinion this includes the right to explore all circumstances capable of indicating that any of the prosecution witnesses had a motive for favouring the Crown.
In R. v. Seaboyer, 1991 CanLII 76 (SCC), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577, it was once again emphasized that the right to cross-examine constitutes a principle of fundamental justice that is critical to the fairness of the accused’s trial. In that case, the right to cross-examine was placed in the context of the right to make full answer and defence (at p. 608, per McLachlin J.):
  • The right of the innocent not to be convicted is dependent on the right to present full answer and defence. This, in turn, depends on being able to call the evidence necessary to establish a defence and to challenge the evidence called by the prosecution.
In short, the denial of the right to call and challenge evidence is tantamount to the denial of the right to rely on a defence to which the law says one is entitled. The defence which the law gives with one hand, may be taken away with the other. Procedural limitations make possible the conviction of persons who the criminal law says are innocent. Cross-examination is all the more crucial to the accused’s ability to make full answer and defence when credibility is the central issue in the trial. Such was the finding made by the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Anandmalik (1984), 6 O.A.C. 143, at p. 144:
  • In a case where the guilt or innocence of the [accused] largely turned on credibility, it was a serious error to limit the [accused] of his substantial right to fully cross-examine the principal Crown witness. It would not be appropriate in the circumstances to invoke or apply the curative provisions of s. 613(1)(b)(iii).
The same point was made by the Alberta Court of Appeal in R. v. Giffin (1986), 1986 ABCA 107 (CanLII), 69 A.R. 158, at p. 159:
  • We agree …that the events about which counsel sought to cross-examine were relevant on the question of the credibility of the witness …. The accused in this case cannot be said to have had an opportunity for a fair answer and defence when he was not permitted to ask them.
To the same effect is R. v. Wallick (1990), 1990 CanLII 11128 (MB CA), 69 Man. R. (2d) 310 (C.A.), where at p. 311 it was said:
  • Cross-examination is a most powerful weapon of the defence, particularly when the entire case turns on credibility of the witnesses. An accused in a criminal case has the right of cross-examination in the fullest and widest sense of the word as long as he does not abuse that right. Any improper interference with the right is an error which will result in the conviction being quashed.
Thus it can be seen that the right to cross-examine has always been held to be of fundamental importance in a criminal trial.  That right is now protected by ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter. As a result it should be interpreted in the “broad and generous manner befitting its constitutional status” (see R. v. Potvin, 1989 CanLII 130 (SCC), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 525, at p. 544).

Professor Sankoff’s recent text, The Law of Witnesses and Evidence in Canada (formerly “Witnesses”) published by Thomson Reuters (Alberta Law Libraries e-book link) has a thorough, excellent treatment of s. 276 in Ch. 12 (see 12.3 – (iv) — The Test for Admissibility: Section 276(2)) – quoting from Chapter 12.4:

Each of these examples would have to be excluded if s. 276(1) were to be read literally. It is fortunate, thus, that most of the courts that have directly considered the matter have adopted Paciocco’s approach, and the Supreme Court, in the process of dismissing a constitutional challenge to the legislation in R. v. Darrach, appears to have implicitly done so as well. In rejecting the accused’s claim in that case that the operation of s. 276(1) would inevitably lead to the exclusion of probative evidence relating to consent, Gonthier J. wrote that:
  • Far from being a “blanket exclusion”, s. 276(1) only prohibits the use of evidence of past sexual activity when it is offered to support two specific, illegitimate inferences. These are known as the “twin myths”… If evidence of sexual activity is proffered for its non-sexual features, such as to show a pattern of conduct or a prior inconsistent statement, it may be permitted.
It follows that prior sexual history evidence can be offered to rebut claims of consent or to impeach credibility, so long as this is done directly, rather than by making a contention based on the complainant’s character.

He points out that ambiguity in s. 276 (“by reason of the sexual nature of that activity, the complainant[…] is more likely to have consented to the sexual activity that forms the subject-matter of the charge”), which is generally (hopefully) interpreted in the manner suggested by Paciocco and that is relatively favourable to the defence (that evidence not directly related to the twin myths is admissible – after an accused’s s. 276 application, of course), while others, of course, would prefer a “L’Heureux-Dubé – style” blanket exclusion, with or without an application.

Conviction rates

Craig notes a “profoundly dysfunctional legal system” (in her book, at p. 22, reviewed here), and low conviction rates. Note Tanovich’s influential 2015 article, “Whack” No More: Infusing Equality into the Ethics of Defence Lawyering in Sexual Assault Cases, 2015 CanLIIDocs 164, available here, at p. 503 (my review here):

In addition, heightened zeal has ramifications rarely seen in other cases. These collateral consequences include under-reporting for fear of being “whacked,” secondary trauma to complainants and low conviction rates.

While I was reviewing Tanovich, I noticed this disturbing footnote commenting on (at p. 504):

Defence counsel wanted to use the painting “to make the point that the theme of false accusation is not the exclusive invention of criminal defence lawyers.”37
Ibid. at para 2. If anything, given the reluctance of women to report sexual assault and the fear of being violated and humiliated in court, it is hard to imagine why someone would bring a false claim. This point is made by Justice L’Heureux-Dubé in Osolin SCC, supra note 4 at 625, where she notes that, “[t]here is absolutely no evidence to suggest that false allegations are more common in sexual assaults than in other offences; indeed, given the data indicating the strong disincentives to reporting, it seems much more likely that the opposite is true.” See also, Sampert, supra note 28 at 307–11 where Professor Sampert notes that one of the myths surrounding sexual assault that is often portrayed in the media is that “innocent men are regularly accused of sexual assault and women regularly lie about it.” This is not to suggest that there are not wrongful sexual assault convictions, but there is little, if any, evidence that this concern extends beyond cases that turn on identification evidence—that is, where the issue is not consent nor whether the act occurred, but whether, in fact, it was the accused who assaulted the complainant. In this category of sexual assault cases, the concerns with “whacking” rarely arise since the focus is not on making the complainant out to be a liar but with whether that identification is mistaken.

This horses**t passing for “expertise” in social science and/or evidence and law is simply ridiculous. I’ve addressed this previously here. Tanovich is dead wrong about this. There are countless wrongful convictions on a regular basis – in part due to butchering of the law thanks to “scholarship” such as his (and that of Craig and L’Heureux-Dubé, etc.), and in part due to the fact that complainants lie. Mistaken identification is probably rarer than both of those scenarios (consent and whether the act occurred). The fact that complainants lie should not be a rape myth – it’s a plain fact, and one that’s borne out by statistics – since we’re so concerned about statistics. Besides – isn’t it a myth and stereotype that women don’t lie about these complaints, and/or that it’s “hard to imagine why they would bring a false claim”? I get affirmative action, but let’s not use it to secure wrongful convictions and promote outdated, archaic, and stereotypical thinking.

I’ve discussed statistics previously here, which tend to show weaknesses in the assertions of L’Heureux-Dubé and Tanovich. Further, there is a plethora of social science research documenting the extremely common false allegations of child sexual abuse in divorce/separation cases. One does not have to be a Mensa scholar to infer that it’s not merely false allegations of child sexual abuse that are being concocted in those cases.

Besides, as Greenspan points out, the question “why would a woman lie about rape?” is silly and misleading, and no more appropriate nor relevant than “why would a man rape?” or “why do people commit crimes?” or “why is the sky blue”? Of course, however, it’s a much more dangerous question, given that it’s used to insinuate that complainants – in a particular kind of case – are being truthful.

Note that it is wrong to presume that witnesses are being truthful and accurate in their testimony (R. v. Thain, 2009 ONCA 223 (CanLII), at para. 32, cited in Paciocco at p. 534, footnote 1). This is distinct from the concept that the witness herself (not her evidence) is presumed to be of good character and truthful (ibid., citing R. v. Giraldi (1975), 28 C.C.C. (2d) 248 (B.C.C.A.), leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused (1975), 28 C.C.C. (2d) 248n (S.C.C.)).

Of course, s. 276 assumes that it will “encourage the reporting of sexual offences” – as if this were a fact. I’m surprised it doesn’t add the tantalizing expectation of higher conviction rates, the reduced likelihood of “whacking the victim”, and rehabilitating our “dysfunctional legal system,” for good measure.

It is partly due to some of the “scholarship” mentioned above (that is irresponsible at best) that a male victim (wrongfully accused of sexual assault) has a better chance at a fair trial in China or Russia than in Canada from 1983 onward.

Presumption of Guilt: Edward L. Greenspan Q.C.’s “The Case for the Defence” – 1987

However, this great, impersonal awesome machinery has one built-in bias. It is an unconscious, functional bias, somewhat like an aircraft’s bias for leaving the ground as soon as it has attained a certain speed. The bias of the justice system is to find guilt. That is, first, to define any human act that comes to its attention as a crime; then, to define any suspect as a person who has probably committed such an act; and finally, to define any human being who has committed such an act as a criminal. That’s the way the justice system flies.

Everyone knows that in an individual case none of this may be true – yet the great machine of the criminal-justice system may thunder down the runway and take off regardless. (E. Greenspan, p. 260)

The concept of the “presumption of guilt” is one that I was introduced to by reading Hersh Wolch Q.C.’s excellent lecture in “Counsel for the Defence: The Bernard Cohn Memorial Lectures in Criminal Law” (Amazon). Wolch argues that, despite the theory of a presumption of innocence, in practice, it usually operates more like a presumption of guilt. It’s a point that seems a daily reality to one who works in the criminal defence trenches, and it’s persuasively argued in Greenspan’s 1987 book “The Case for the Defence” – Macmillan (Amazon).

Greenspan’s book is excellent. Among other subjects, he discusses problems with the direction in which sexual assault laws in Canada were heading back then. Frankly, he was right on most counts. I’d say his words are more timely now than they were when he wrote them some 35 years ago. I’ll quote extensively from pages 224-244:

The problem here was simple. Our knowledge of human nature has always suggested that, on the whole, a real victim of sexual assault (or any other type of crime) would complain of it at the first reasonable opportunity. However, the new rules, while making life potentially easier for a lying complainant, made it harder for those truthful victims who did complain. Hindering witnesses who are somewhat more likely to tell the truth in order to help those who are somewhat more likely to lie did nothing, in my view, to assist the courts in their primary purpose, which is to arrive at a just result.

For instance, in common law the “recent complaint” rule used to permit complainants to bolster their own testimony by leading evidence that they had complained about being sexually assaulted at the first reasonable opportunity. This was simply to show consistency on their part – something that no other type of witness would be allowed to show (unless the other side challenged them by suggesting that their evidence was a recent fabrication). The rule favoured complainants. The downside of the rule was that, in the words of one judgment, “the jury must … be instructed that the absence of a recent complaint gives rise to an inference that tells against the truthfulness of a complainant’s evidence.” This rule was abolished. Curiously, while abrogating the rule made it easier to bring sexual-assault charges about which the complainant said nothing to anyone – whether at the first reasonable opportunity or ever – it took away a complainant’s chance to show the consistence of her allegation by a recent complaint.

Corroboration requirements were also abrogated, giving rise to a similar dichotomy. Judges used to be required to warn juries that, while it was open to them to convict on the uncorroborated evidence of a complainant, it was dangerous to do so, unless some other evidence connected her story to the alleged offence in some material particular. The abolition of this rule was actually welcomed by many defence lawyers, since in practice it often had the effect during the judge’s charge of focusing the jury’s attention on dozen of insignificant or dubious details in the Crown’s case as “corroborating” the complainant’s story. (For instance, the grass being flattened on a piece of ground could be held to “corroborate” a complainant’s story that she was raped at that spot – even though the fact in itself was just as consistent with the defendant’s claim that he had consensual intercourse with the complainant: the grass would be flattened in either case.) Still, while some reforms were needed, the total abrogation of corroboration rules tended to turn sexual-assault trials into a “her word against his” type of contest in which neither the truthful complainant nor the truthful accused could expect any help from the rules of evidence.

But all of this was dwarfed by the real problem, which was to severely curtail the defendant’s ability to test the complainant’s evidence against him through cross-examination. In some respects, complainants ceased to be compellable witnesses altogether. A complainant could no longer be asked many types of questions about her conduct – not even in a closed voir dire hearing to help a judge determine whether or not he should allow those questions to be asked in front of a jury.

The reasons for curtailing cross-examination were to save complainants from embarrassment, to protect their privacy, and to encourage them to come forward with complaints. However, whatever their merits, these reasons were not sufficient to deny natural justice to a man presumed to be innocent by preventing him from confronting his accuser, or to stop a judge from even considering whether an accused, by not being able to ask these questions in a given case, would be denied natural justice or not.

It was becoming increasingly difficult for anyone accused of sexual assault to exercise a citizen’s fundamental right to make full answer and defence to a criminal charge. […]

Evidently, many judges had not yet resigned themselves to asking participants to submit to a test of fire, as courts did in the Middle Ages, to see who was telling the truth. They wanted to preserve cross-examination – the finest instrument the law has for separating fact from fancy.

Some of then new laws were downright silly. For instance, a kiss could be defined as a sexual assault if the recipient did not consent it, and a charge could be brought against spouses actually living with each other. I theory, this made it possible for a husband to be found guilty of sexual assault on the following fact situation:

HUSBAND (to his wife after a disagreement): Oh, let’s kiss and make up.

WIFE: No.

HUSBAND: Aw, come on. (He kisses her. Enter police. Arrest, trial, conviction.)

The media – usually the keenest watchdog against any unfairness or injustice in society – often seemed to lose all sense of fairness when it came to feminist issues. Journalists would wax indignant over a judge’s sentencing a rapist to “only” four years in prison “in spite of the Crown’s demand for a sentence of ten years”. I could hardly believe my eyes seeing such examples. What did the Crown’s “demand” have to do with whether or not the sentence was appropriate? In the same courthouse on the same day, as the reporter ought to have known, judges were sentencing to four years all kinds of non-sexual offenders for whom Crown attorneys were also “demanding” ten-year sentences. It is a normal part of the adversary process for the Crown and defence to make widely disparate sentencing submissions, and for the judge to decide what is right. The press might have just as easily reported that despite a defence lawyer’s submission for an eighteen-month sentence in reformatory, the judge gave the accused four years in a penitentiary.

But some feminists wanted to “re-educate” judges – that is, to bully and coerce them to look at everything from their point of view – and latched upon the idea of using the media for the purpose. Perhaps this was made possible by the fact that reporters assigned to cover the courts (with some honourable exceptions) know surprisingly little about the law. Unlike journalists assigned to cover science, politics, or entertainment, court reporters and their editors often do not have even a well-educated layman’s understanding of the legal process about which they are expected to inform the public. (This is not just my opinion, incidentally; it was a frequently expressed complaint of Canada’s late Chief Justice, Bora Laskin.)

Nothing illustrates this better than two recent examples in which judges were vociferously castigated in the press for remarks made in the course of sexual-assault trials.

In one case a judge, while sentencing a man to a prison term for raping an exotic dancer, made some remark about a stripper being in a business designed “to inspire lust”. Immediately, a cry arose in the media demanding that the judge be censured. […]

Calling for censure in such a case, in my opinion, was nothing but an attempt to intimidate the judiciary. In so far as it was also made by some lawyers, it may have amounted to contempt of court. In the past, lawyers criticizing judges in this fashion had often been requested to apologize to the judges involved. In the case of feminist objections – as I put it in speech to the Ontario Psychiatric Association in 1986 – it was some of the judges who ended up apologizing to their critics.

The press was even wider off the mark in another case. That was a case in which an Ontario judge was being crucified in the media for rating a rape – again, after convicting the accused – as “a 2 on scale of 1 to 10”. […]

Co-author George Jonas then continues (in italics) with the story of Wayne St. Louis, a former client of Greenspan’s charges with sexual assault in 1981 in Windsor, Ontario (I couldn’t find any online references to this story).

It has been argued that when the police believe that someone may have committed a crime, it is their duty to lay a charge, even if the evidence against the accused is marginal. At the same time efficiency and common sense suggest that police exercise the discretion available to them and not waste the courts’ time and the taxpayers’ money with cases in which a conviction is all but impossible. Expediency and cost-effectiveness are not the only reasons. Some police officers honestly believe that harassing an accused for no reason or exposing him to the chance, however remote, of a perverse conviction is simply unfair.

The exceptions to this rule are high-profile crimes (such as, say, murder) or high-profile suspects (for instance, members of “organized crime” or very wealthy or famous persons). In such cases the police have been known to lay charges on very little evidence. Other exceptions include crimes that attract a lot of social pressure to prosecute no matter what, such as rape has become in recent years. Or any crime in which the suspect is a policeman. […]

As for rape, it has always been regarded as a very serious crime. Historically except for murder, it was the only other crime for which the death penalty remained available in some jurisdictions. However, precisely because it was taken so seriously, the courts were especially careful to have it proved beyond a reasonable doubt against an accused. Judges recognized that, while it exposed the accused to grave penal consequences and much social opprobrium, rape was a charge very easily brought against a person. Unlike other legal systems, English law never subscribed to the maxim of testis unus testis nullus, which prohibits conviction on the evidence of a single witness.

For this reason, much latitude used to be given to the defendants’ lawyers in the cross-examination of complainants. Sometimes – depending on the trial judge, who could always limit such questioning to relevant issues – this gave rise to an atmosphere in which rape trials were harder on the complainant than on the accused. It was said, with some justification, that the courts “put the victim on trial.” At times complaints of sexual assault were heard in courts in a climate of intrinsic disbelief.

It might have been possible to remedy all this intelligently, but – in the opinion of many lawyers – it wasn’t. in recent years it was remedied by simply reversing the unfairness. From intrinsic disbelief (which was unfair, of course), the climate changed to one that seemed to echo the rhetorical question “Why would a woman lie about being raped?”

But this is a silly question. As silly as asking, “Why would a man rape?” Generally, of course, men don’t rape and women don’t lie – about being raped or anything else. Most people tend to observe the biblical injunction against bearing false witness against fellow human beings most of the time. However, some people do lie sometimes, and it is the task of the criminal-justice system to separate, beyond a reasonable doubt, the minority who do from the majority who don’t. this cannot be accomplished by presumptions either way, only by a meticulous, case-by-case examination of the facts. In the words of the English jurist Sir James Stephen, “the power of lying is unlimited, the causes of lying and delusion are numerous …” It is not the court’s business to say why a woman would lie about being raped, only to make sure no innocent person is convicted in the rare instance when she does. […]

This indicated that, in law, it is possible to be convicted of sexual assault on an uncorroborated complaint, first made more than a year after the fact, shown to be inconsistent in vital details, altered in mid-trial to suit facts learned during the defendant’s testimony, and presented by a girl who, in her own words, tends to “dream about” essential parts of her evidence. It is possible to find a man of unblemished reputation guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on this kind of evidence alone. It is not unreasonable.

What, then, is unreasonable? Is it surprising that rape has been traditionally regarded as a charge very easy to bring and very hard to deny? Has it been wrong for the law in the past to surround defendants with certain safeguards? Or has it been a mistake for the law to remove them? […]

If, as a matter of social policy, we go on “sensitizing” girls and women to the “coercive sexuality” of men; if we keep giving seminars and showing propaganda films on the subject in schools; if we keep suggesting to young people that they be alert to “sexual harassment” and “bad touching” and invite them to view any gesture in the light of this possibility; if we positively urge people – as we are beginning to do – to have no tolerance of any “uninvited” sexual expression, not even “ogling” or “lewd remarks”, and to resolve any doubt they may have in this regard by reporting the matter to the authorities – if we do this, we will inevitably end up with accusations like the one levelled against the Windsor swimming-pool owner or Wayne St. Louis.

In addition, if we keep diluting our evidentiary rules; if we threaten our police, Crown attorneys, and judges with censure for applying the same common sense, or the same discretion, in cases of alleged sexual assault as they do in all other criminal investigations and trials, we will inevitably end up with innocent people convicted and ruined.

This is not just a possibility or a likelihood: it is a statistical certainty. In any population group there will be a few spiteful or evil-minded liars. There will be a few wicked or impressionable children, and a few malicious or fanatical adults to manipulate them. Their numbers will undoubtedly be small, but one in a thousand is enough. In the old days of witchcraft trials it was impressionable, wicked, or manipulated children who most often testified about seeing accused witches flying around on broomsticks. If, as an experiment, all schools started showing films requesting children to be on the alert for their parents or neighbours turning into little green men from Mars, it is a statistical certainty that some reports of such sightings would be received by the police. […]

[…] But there is a world of difference between protecting women and children, and inviting malicious, confused, or ideologically motivated to use sex as a weapon against others.

As a criminal lawyer I have seen nothing to persuade me that we cannot achieve the first aim without “taking a chance” on the second. True, any system of justice entails the incidental risk of injustice, but justice is never achieved by wilfully creating a climate in which it becomes easier to prosecute or convict the innocent.

One final point. At times lawyers are accused of having an economic interest in the social measures that they advocate. Frankly, as a criminal defence counsel, my economic interest is in seeing the greatest possible number of middle-class people being hauled into court on criminal charges of all kinds. If, for instance, in child custody battles every second wife were to charge her husband with having molested the children – an increasing number are doing it already – I could soon keep a yacht in the Mediterranean. […]

[…] I suggest that we should take a second look at our feminist-inspired social policies before some people’s vested interest in their perpetuation becomes overwhelming. As it is, an entire industry has sprung up around the educational, legislative, administrative, and enforcement aspects of feminist ideology. Pretty soon pulling back would entail having to add hundreds of bureaucrats, consultants, academics, educational filmmakers, social workers, newspaper columnists, and other experts – along with their secretaries, researchers, and assorted support personnel – to the welfare rolls.

That is without mentioning the new censors, the behaviour modification therapists, the anti-violence-and-pornography crowd that has become a contemporary meeting-ground between feminism and the Moral Majority. My 1986 speech to the Ontario Psychiatric Association centred mainly on them. I said at that time: […]

These censors, who form the great bridge in our days between Right and Left, between arch-conservatives and “progressives”, who forge ahead like the Light Brigade, deserve a chapter in themselves. A chapter like that would involve a discussion of art, literature, psychology and philosophy. Since I don’t want to step outside my own area, criminal law, it will have to be written by someone else.