[MBates]

Originally Posted by MacDaddy77

It must feel real disgusting to be a defence lawyer in cases like this.

In legitimate criminal justice systems, the accused is presumed to be innocent. That is not just a legal principle but a practical approach that defence counsel must adhere to in order to discharge our duties fully.

In the context of bail, the Supreme Court of Canada has described the presumption this way:

https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc...18391/index.do

"...The presumption of innocence is “a hallowed principle lying at the very heart of criminal law [that] confirms our faith in humankind”...The presumption of innocence is only satisfied in the bail process when the requirements of [Charter] s. 11(e) are met...As described by Andrew Ashworth and Lucia Zedner, the presumption of innocence and the protection of liberty rights mean that “the state should presume each person to be harmless...therefore it is in principle wrong to take coercive measures against people for preventive reasons unless there are very strong justifications for doing so” (Preventive Justice (2014), at p. 53). The Charter therefore protects accused persons from unreasonable terms and conditions of bail.

A while back I helped a father accused of the brutal beating death of his child to be acquitted at trial. The defence credibly advanced a theory it was the mother who was actually responsible. She was accused of same on the witness stand. I suppose looking from the outside, people easily could have thought of the defence lawyers as evil and assumed we must have felt 'disgusting' defending in this manner against what our client was accused of having done.

But the point is he was presumed innocent and it did not make me feel disgusting to deliver the full legal and ethical defence he was entitled to no matter what the evidence appeared to show. And in the end the evidence was not enough to prove he had done anything wrong.

David Milgaard was factually innocent. As a society we did the worst thing possible in taking all of his best years of life from him and locking him up for 23 years for a heinous rape and murder that he had nothing to do with. Objectively the evidence against him was damning. It was also entirely untrue.

We have done similar to so many others it is a reality most Canadians make themselves willfully blind to. If you want to feel disgusting, go spend a day reading here:

https://www.innocencecanada.com/exonerations/

Consider the concluding statement on the page regarding Steven Truscott:

The Court of Appeal commented that Steven had spent “his entire adult life in the shadow” of his wrongful conviction. In response to Steven being awarded $6.5 million in compensation, the Truscotts issued a statement explaining, “Although we are grateful for the freedom and stability this award will provide, we are also painfully aware that no amount of money could ever truly compensate Steven for the terror of being sentenced to hang at the age of 14, the loss of his youth or the stigma of living for almost 50 years as a convicted murderer.” It is extremely fortunate, and worthy of admiration, that Steven has been able to rebuild his life and start a family but the Truscotts will likely never be able to step out fully from the long, dark shadow of Steven’s wrongful conviction.

I am not saying that the evidence and human circumstances we deal with on a daily basis do not get to you sometimes. We are after all human too (contrary to popular opinion...haha). But while legitimately attacking the credibility and reliability of witnesses accusing your client is often not able to be described as 'fun', it truly is a job that someone must do. And in that I feel grateful and an immense sense of duty and responsibility.

Disgust? If feeling that for simply doing what they are legally and ethically required to do, then the defence lawyer is obligated to withdraw from the file.