(28. – 915.) More Tough Crimes edited by William Trudell and Lorene Shyba
– A couple of years ago Tough Crimes was my favourite work of
non-fiction of the year. I was drawn to a book containing a series of essays by
Canadian criminal lawyers and judges, each writing about a case in which they
had participated that was of personal significance to them. I knew two of the
lawyers. The sequel More Tough Crimes provides another series
of essays on Canadian criminal cases covering a wide variety of criminal cases.
Brian Greenspan, in The Eagle has Landed, deals with an increasing challenge for
lawyers especially in North America. Alan Eagleson gained fame as hockey czar
in Canada from the 1960’s through the 1980’s. He was the Executive Director of
the National Hockey League’s Player Association, a promoter of hockey
tournaments, a board member of Hockey Canada, a player agent, a lawyer and
businessman. His myriad interests inevitably brought him into major conflicts
of interest for which he faced parallel criminal investigations in the U.S. and
Canada in the early 1990’s. He was indicted in the U.S. in 1994 and Canada in
1996.
Facing major criminal proceedings in two
countries Greenspan advised the costs of defence would be approximately $4
million. He said Eagleson and his wife said they did not have the time and
money to fight the charges and instructed Greenspan to seek a settlement.
Now with complex charges alleging fraud there is
often opportunity to reach an agreement to plead guilty to some of the charges.
Greenspan skillfully negotiated a plea bargain in which there were guilty pleas
on each side of the border but no jail time in America. It would be a rare
lawyer that would have his client serve time in an American prison over a
Canadian prison.
I have never met Eagleson but I did see him in
court in the 1990’s when he was in a civil trial over his representation of a
hockey player. He showed an irresistible commitment to being the center of
attention. During the proceedings the trial judge made an amusing remark. The
lawyers chuckled. Eagleson drew attention to himself by laughing aloud such
that you thought he must have considered it the funniest thing he had ever
heard.
Brock Martland discussed bizarre events in one
of Canada’s most prominent criminal trials of the past decade. In 2007 four
members of a criminal gang and two individuals at the wrong place at the wrong
time were murdered in a Surrey, British Columbia apartment.
Martland states:
The Surrey Six trial was a wild ride. The only
certainty was uncertainty. The Crown cut a sweetheart deal with a gang leader,
only to have his evidence firmly rejected by the trial judge. The Crown and
police, likewise, made a deal with a trigger-man, Person X, but never got the
benefit of his evidence. His evidence was excluded for reasons that remain a
great mystery to the accused men, who are now serving life sentences, and to
the public.
I find it very hard to accept secret rulings in
criminal proceedings in Canada. For good reason criminal trials are to be open to
the public. Justice in secret is justice denied. I can only hope the appeal
process will bring out the issues of privilege that prevented a killer from
testifying at the trial.
Martland goes on to raise an important question
of public policy:
One remarkable feature of the case was the
willingness on the part of the Crown and police to make a deal with a murderer.
In British Columbia, historically, the Crown has made deals with accomplices
and conspirators but not with the actual killers. There has been, in recent
years, a significant shift.
I agree with Martland’s reservations about the
shift to making deals with actual killers. As he points out in this case “ ‘deals
with the devils’ did not help the prosecution’s case.”
My former law school classmate, Brian Beresh,
explores a historic murder trial from 1934 in which Dina Dranchuk was convicted
of murder at a trial in which the “prosecution’s case was completed in under
three-and-a-half hours”, the “defence case was completed in nineteen minutes
which included an opening address and the evidence of a medical expert”,
defence counsel took five minutes to address the jury and the “jury deliberated
for under forty-three minutes.” Though sentenced to hang her sentence was
commuted.
Brian’s review sets out there were profound
mental health issues with regard to the accused that could only have been
touched upon in a trial of such brevity.
It is inconceivable to me that a defence counsel
would spend but nineteen minutes in defence of his client.
Brian believes this case is another example of “unequal
treatment of women in the criminal justice system”. He states at the end of his
essay:
One is left with the conclusion that this was
another appalling chapter in Canadian criminal justice where the accused’s
gender did not aid, but rather hindered the quest for justice.
While not involved in any of the cases in More Tough Crimes I was counsel in a
different case involving Ashley Smith. The inquest into her death forms one of
the essays. My next post will discuss that inquest and my case.
Overall I found the essays in More Tough Crimes interesting but not as
compelling as the essays of Tough Crimes. This collection was more
a recounting of cases with fewer examples of lawyers explaining how they were
affected by the cases. As with its predecessor More Tough Crimes would be a valuable resource for any crime
fiction writer wanting inspiration and/or knowledge of the Canadian criminal
justice system.
****
Evans, C.D. – (2015) - Tough Crimes edited with Lorene Shyba
This does sound interesting, Bill. And it sounds as though it addresses several legal issues, like mental health, international questions, and so on. I'll bet it's a useful resource, too, on the history of Canadian law.
ReplyDeleteMargot: Thanks for the comment.All sorts of life issues raise themselves in court cases and there are numerous examples in More Tough Crimes.
Delete