Newsflash – the Ontario Government is looking for outstanding members of the public to sit on 27 separate police services boards throughout the province. Criminal defence lawyers need not apply.
What? Did I read that right?
Strangely yes. On the Ontario Government Public Appointment Secretariat’s website found at: http://www.pas.gov.on.ca/scripts/en/upcomingVac.asp, there are nearly 200 postings for various positions on provincial agencies, boards and commissions.
But in the requirement section for the police services board postings, it states, “No judge, justice of the peace, police officer or person who practises criminal law as a defence counsel may sit as a member of a board.â€
Presumably this restriction is present because of a perceived conflict of interest by the enumerated professions. But in the case of criminal defence lawyers, I don’t see it.
Is it suggesting that criminal lawyers are blindly partial to criminals and that they do not want to live in safe communities? Or perhaps they are too inclined towards Charter rights, fairness and the rule of law?
Unlike the police and members of the judiciary, the defence bar is not paid through government salaries. If they are paid government money at all, it is by piecemeal legal aid certificates. But if you think about it, it is in everyone’s best interest including defence lawyers for the police to do a good job.
Let’s be clear, police services boards exist for effective administration of police organizations. They do not, or at least should not, direct or participate in police operations. Their role is to set administrative and fiscal policy.
Accordingly, a defence lawyer serving on a police services board is not in any conflict of interest.
Neither is it a general conflict for other professions like chartered accountants, business owners, or Commedia dell’Arte clowns for that matter to serve. The question that should be asked is who best can serve in the required capacity.
To say that criminal defence lawyers are in conflict because they make their living representing “criminals†is to miss the point. Having a thorough understanding of the criminal justice system is an asset and indubitably would be a positive influence on the effectiveness of police services boards.
This little tidbit is deeply concerning. It appears to leave open applications from Crown Attorneys who practice criminal law but not defence lawyers. That should tell speak volumes about how serious the government is about seaking impartial appointments to its Police Services Board. Shameful.
Good find Joel.
I too find this quite disturbing. Oddly, enough I am currently working on a Pro-Bono case that involved Employment Law with respect to discrimination on hiring procedures by various charity organizations.
Now having a very rudimentary understanding of Employment Law, and not having taken the courses (yet!!!), I would be curious to know if this is actually discrimination against a potential candidate who happens to be a criminal defence lawyer’s.
The OHRC does not indicate that current or past position is a discriminable ground. However, the OHRC does list a number of exceptions under s. 24, however it would not apply because, again, current or past job is not listed.
To further complicate the pot, many times those hired to prosecute federal drug charges under the CDSA only do so part-time. The remainder of the time they can work as defence council. So in essence, this stipulation may be excluding even more people. People that are trusted enough to prosecute offenders.
I too find this distressing. It not only places those lawyers who prosecute above those who defend, but it also suggests that not all lawyers are the same. Are all lawyers not officers of the court? Are they not equally responsible for the rights and privileges that come with being called to the bar? It appears not, because these positions suggest that criminal defence lawyers are either not of the same calibre or are not as trust worthy as crown attorneys because of the nature of their position.
Canada is an adversarial system. A system that needs lawyers to defend, and it is wrong to suggest, by exclusion, that these lawyers are not up to the jobs simply because they sit on the left side of the court.
Further to writing this post, I have discovered that the offending (not to mention offensive) legislation is found in the Ontario Police Services Act of Ontario. Section 27 (13)states:
Persons who are ineligible to be members of a board
(13) A judge, a justice of the peace, a police officer and a person who practises criminal law as a defence counsel may not be a member of a board. 1997, c. 8, s. 19 (3).