Newfoundland of Appeal considered appeal by lawyer from sentence on a conviction for attempted obstruction of justice Lawyer counselled a witness to be forgetful and evasive when testifying Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence lawyer is made an officer of the Courts…A lawyer who attempts to obstruct justice by “Every wilfully counselling evasive evidence not only commits an offence contrary to…the Criminal Code but also breaches his solemn duty as an officer of the Court Possible sanctions: Costs against a client Costs against lawyer personally Negative order under a given rule of civil procedure Law society disciple Criminal sanctions Negative reputation R v Lyttle (SCC): Scope of Cross-Examination good faith basis – Background: A was part of a group that beat a man with baseball bats, said to be the only one unmasked The defence had a theory that A was targeted in order to conceal the real fact that the assailants were part of the victim’s drug ring and he was protecting them from prosecution Judge ruled that defence could only cross Crown witnesses if she had substantive evidence of the drug debt theory; this resulted in having to call them as her own witnesses so lost right to address jury last Judgment: R v Osolin: question of the importance of [It] must be permitted so that an “no accused can make full answer and defence. The opportunity to cross-examin witnesses is fundamental to providing a fair to an accused Right to cross is protected by ss 7 and 11(d) of Charter A question can be put to a witness in cross-examination regarding matters that need not be proved independently, provided that counsel has a good faith basis for putting the question Counsel may believe something to be true but have no way to prove it save through Good faith basis = Based on information available to the lawyer Her belief that it is likely accurate And the purpose for which it is used May be prevented from cross-examining if Asking unrelated questions in order to take a shot at the reputation of the person Although can resort to some innuendo and unproven assumptions R v R (AJ): Content of Background A charged with incest and sexual assault against daughter and granddaughter The appellant submits that the was improper and prejudicial to the applicant
Newfoundland of Appeal considered appeal by lawyer from sentence on a conviction for attempted obstruction of justice Lawyer counselled a witness to be forgetful and evasive when testifying Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence “Every lawyer is made an officer of the Courts…A lawyer who attempts to obstruct justice by wilfully counselling evasive evidence not only commits an offence contrary to…the Criminal Code but also breaches his solemn duty as an officer of the Court Possible sanctions: Costs against a client Costs against lawyer personally Negative order under a given rule of civil procedure Law society disciple Criminal sanctions Negative reputation R v Lyttle (SCC): Scope of Cross-Examination – good faith basis Background: A was part of a group that beat a man with baseball bats, said to be the only one unmasked The defence had a theory that A was targeted in order to conceal the real fact that the assailants were part of the victim’s drug ring and he was protecting them from prosecution Judge ruled that defence could only cross Crown witnesses if she had substantive evidence of the drug debt theory; this resulted in having to call them as her own witnesses so lost right to address jury last Judgment: R v Osolin: “no question of the importance of [It] must be permitted so that an accused can make full answer and defence. The opportunity to cross-examin witnesses is fundamental to providing a fair to an accused Right to cross is protected by ss 7 and 11(d) of Charter A question can be put to a witness in cross-examination regarding matters that need not be proved independently, provided that counsel has a good faith basis for putting the question Counsel may believe something to be true but have no way to prove it save through Good faith basis = Based on information available to the lawyer Her belief that it is likely accurate And the purpose for which it is used May be prevented from cross-examining if Asking unrelated questions in order to take a shot at the reputation of the person Although can resort to some innuendo and unproven assumptions R v R (AJ): Content of Background A charged with incest and sexual assault against daughter and granddaughter The appellant submits that the was improper and prejudicial to the applicant
Benedet_105_Fall_2013_Laura_Wilson.docx