[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Barrister]

So I try to not get too "legal" on Twitter, but I thought I advanced what was a completely uncontroversial point - that if a client confesses to their lawyer the lawyer can still represent them, they can still argue for "not guilty", but only on the basis of "the Crown/government hasn't proved the case".  In particular - if you know your client is guilty you can't advance an affirmative defence like "no, it was actually Mr X who did this crime".

A whole bunch of US attorneys jumped down my throat like I was crazy - who cares what your client says, why would you believe them anyways, you have to do everything under your power to defend your client, etc.

I remember I was taught that this is actually a serious tactical decision to make between a client and lawyer - if the lawyer asks "OK so tell me what happened" you might get a really useful defence you want to pursue, or you might be limited in what you can do when your client confesses to you.

So that's exactly my understanding too.

Basically you can undermine the prosecution's case but you can't really advance your own because you'd be misleading the court. But I've always slightly had the impression (purely based on US TV ) that doing your utmost for your client is the absolute obligation for a lawyer in the US. Here, and in Canada by the sounds of it, it's only one of your duties - you also can't mislead the court, can't engage in conduct that would bring the profession into disrepute etc. And if that creates a conflict between those duties then you need to step back for professional reasons.

Although obviously it plays out slightly differently for solicitors than barristers - because solicitors aren't actually advocating/speaking at the court except through witness statements.

Yeah it was an interesting dalliance into a whole different perspective.  I didn't want to get too deep into it but it seemed like it was a clear split between the US/Canadian side of things.

Slightly related - in my very brief defence counsel career I was representing a guy on refusing to provide a breath sample/drunk driving.  We potentially had a defence to the refusal charge.  I gleefully told me client "and then you can take the stand and tell them how you weren't drunk".  My client, who was more aware of legal ethics than I was that day, said "uhh... I can't do that".  I was like  yup I inadvertantly was trying to suborn perjury.

Well I'm glad you avoided the downward slope to Saul Goodman.

So I "learned" criminal law in the 90s in Canada (I put in quotation marks because I took the bare minimum in crim law cases back then).  The massive legal ethics case back then was the Paul Bernardo/Karla Homolka case.  Bernardo/Homolka were under suspicion, even arrest, for the abduction, sexual assault, and murder of two girls (including Homolka's sister).  There was circumstantial evidence, but nothign direct.

Anyways, Bernardo's house had been searched by police multiple times.  Bernardo told his lawyer that they had videotaped the crimes, and where the videotapes were hidden.  The lawyer then decided it would be a great idea to go into the house and retrieve the videotapes.

Problem is - this is evidence tampering.

Homolka then decided to cut a plea deal with the Crown.  This is HIGHLY unusual in Canada (my 20 years I've never seen it happen), but in exchange she got a lighter sentence.

In the mean time the lawyer realized he had fucked up.

No wait - I googled the details.  The lawyer fucking retired, and left the tapes for his successor.  The successor then got advice and turned them over to police, albeit anonymously.

So anyways I'd like to think a little ignorance of professional ethics from a 2 year lawyer practicing in northern Alberta (and this was extremely northern Alberta, FN community near the NWT border) is perhaps a tiny bit excusable if very experienced crim defence attorneys could fuck up this badly.

[Barrister]

Liberals defeated in two by-elections.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/federal-byelection-montreal-winnipeg-1.7321730

So the Montreal riding is getting the most attention, probably for good reason.  It was Paul Martin's former riding, held by the Liberals almost continuously (except for the 2011 NDP "orange wave").  BQ candidate now elected.  Obviously I would have preferred the Conservatives to come in better than 4th, but the Conservatives winning that riding would be one of the signs of the apocalypse.

I do want to talk about the NDP win in Winnipeg's Elmwood-Transcona.  It's a north-east riding, very working class.  Very much an NDP stronghold.  The former NDP MP, Daniel Blaikie, is son of the long-time MP Bill Blaikie who had that seat forever.  I was also the campaign manager for the provincial Elmwood riding in the 1999 provincial election (and the fact they made a 24 year old law student a campaign manager shoes how little chance we had in that riding).  So the fact the Conservatives came within 4 points is actually a good sign.


By the way I checked the official results - what's with these jackasses who insist on trying to put like 30-40 candidates on the ballot in Montreal?  None of them got any meaningful votes, although given how close the results were (28% BQ, 27% Libs, 26% NDP) I guess it could have made a difference, but what exactly is the point they're trying to prove?

https://enr.elections.ca/ElectoralDistricts.aspx?ed=2106&lang=e

[Grey Fox]

The point they are trying to make, and failing, is that FTTP is undemocratic.