Product Of Frustration

The British Columbia Law Society Hearing Division has ordered a four-week suspension of an attorney

The Respondent acted for an accused (the “Accused”) who was charged criminally in two separate matters. One involved sexual touching of a child under 16 years and sexual assault (the “Sexual Touching Charges”) and the other involved possession and access of child pornography for the purposes of distribution or sale (the “Child Pornography Charges”).

Misconduct

The Respondent admits that between August 31 and November 1, 2018, while representing the Accused, they stated on several occasions in court, in writing and orally, that Crown counsel had fabricated evidence and that these statements were not based on a reasonable assessment of the evidence. They admit by doing so, they failed to act with courtesy and/or civility contrary to rules 2.1-4 and/or 7.2-1 of the Code and admits this was professional misconduct.

No bad faith

The Panel finds the Respondent’s allegations about Crown Counsel fabricating evidence were not motivated by bad faith. They were the product of the frustration they felt during the proceedings for the Child Pornography Charges, as the Respondent believed Crown Counsel repeatedly misstated their position, including in documents filed with the court, referred to their client’s applications as frivolous and in the Crown Misstatement did not accurately reflect what the psychologist had said about the Accused’s interest in young females.

Sanction

After considering the relevant mitigating and aggravating factors above, the Panel concludes the four-week suspension proposed by the parties is proportionate, appropriate and in the public interest in the administration of justice.

(Mike Frisch)