This week, several MPs tweeted about their participation in roundtable discussions with Jody Wilson-Raybould and other “stakeholders” in criminal justice reform.
But best we can tell defence counsel were not invited to have a seat at any of those roundtables.
Despite the fact that we come up with sensible and workable solutions to plenty of criminal justice problems, and despite the fact that defence counsel are clearly stakeholders in the system of criminal justice, the Government never wants to hear our voices, thoughts, or ideas.
We would have fewer constitutional challenges, better and stronger laws, and a more effective and efficient court system if defence lawyers were considered stakeholders in criminal justice and road safety issues.
This isn’t new. We’ve been kept out of the discussion for years.
Consider for a moment the marijuana legalization. Plenty of people were consulted and asked to join a task force. None of them were defence counsel with expertise in the area of marijuana laws, despite the fact that there are dozens of able and wise lawyers in this area.
This becomes all the more troubling when the discussion is now focussed around important issues that will prove costly for Government if they fail, like the impaired driving law reform currently tabled by the Federal Government. Constitutional challenges are expensive. Engaging defence counsel in the discussion and working together to create reasonable laws that we all can live with is a lot cheaper.
We don’t just see this from the Federal Government. Even at a provincial level the engagement of defence lawyers in “stakeholder relations” is abysmal.
Did you know that RoadSafetyBC has an entire office related to “stakeholder relations?” Neither did we until it came up in an FOI. And despite the fact that we are at the forefront of all things road-safety-related in the legal realm, they do not believe that it is necessary to engage us in any discussions.
Even the BC police forces involve others – the BC Association of Chiefs of Police invite members of all sorts of non-police road safety organizations to sit on the Impaired Driving Advisory Committee or the Traffic Safety Committee. These people have standing invitations to attend the meetings. But I guess our invite got lost in the mail.
Look, maybe it’s some sort of misconception. We may be akin to mercenaries fighting for our clients, but defence lawyers are not supportive of crime. Defence lawyers are not supportive of drunk driving or speeding or breaking the traffic laws. We are supportive of sensible laws that are reasonable and with proper dispute processes, where adjudication is fair and open and transparent. There is nothing wrong with that, and we think most Canadians are generally supportive of this instead of some Draconian and arbitrary law.
Maybe the Government believes defence lawyers just want crime and carnage, but I can assure you we do not. When asked, we put aside our armour and try and hash out good solutions for our society.
Criminal defence lawyers are known as the most collegial section of the legal bar. We are the most willing to share thoughts, ideas, and information with one another. And that willingness extends to the Government when it comes to discussing legislative and procedural changes that impact our clients. Our concerns are protection of Charter rights and due process. And that can be lost completely (as we’ve seen with the new impaired driving laws) when the only voices at the table are those who are more concerned with the penalty or the harm that the law is trying to prevent.
I can guarantee that we would have fewer constitutional challenges, better and stronger laws, and a more effective and efficient court system if defence lawyers were considered stakeholders in criminal justice and road safety issues.
What will it take for Government to engage defence lawyers in important discussions that impact their clients? What will it take for Government to admit that we bring an important and necessary perspective?
We don’t know the answers to these questions. But for now, we sit here and continue to wait to be invited to the discussion.