Maybe the holidays have given me time to think, or maybe it was my recent return to criminal court for a client, but I'd like to write something about the Crown attorney's office. For those of you unfamiliar with the Crown attorney (I'll refer to them as the "Crown"), they are responsible for prosecuting crimes in this country.

I've only worked on criminal cases doing defence, but in my dealings with the Crown, many of them are very fair. They will offer deals that are reasonable and in the best interest for everybody. Others will fight it out for the sake of fighting and will rarely be involved in a plea bargain. Once while leaving court with a colleague, I discussed my frustrations with a certain lawyer for the Crown, that was echoed by many members of the profession. My colleague, however, said he enjoyed the fight, but he was an atypical criminal lawyer (he primarily worked in civil litigation and legal aid criminal cases were a hobby for him).

What I will say is that a Crown attorney is supposed to prosecute alleged crimes for the purposes of administering justice for the public good. They are not supposed to be looking for wins and fueling their own egos unless it is ancillary to the interests of society. Not everybody at the Crown's office believes that.

Many people not involved in the criminal process don't put a lot of importance in criminal defence. Even a summer student that I was working with while articling felt that everybody who had even been charged with a crime is guilty. That simply isn't the case and we can't simply allow the Crown attorney to have free reign over the judicial system by doing things like dictating the court schedule (which they already are doing in the GTA).

So who really are your friends or enemies in the judicial system now? Who is looking out for themselves and who is helping shape the public good? The answers to those questions can only be answered by you.

        

 

What did you think of this article?

Liked
Disliked
No Opinion