![]() "The law is only one of several imperfect and more or less external ways of defending what is better in life against what is worse. By itself, the law can never create anything better. Establishing respect for the law does not automatically ensure a better life for that, after all, is a job for people and not for laws and institutions." --Vaclav Havel The Lawyer as Prosecutor: Rule (Nova Scotia Barrister's Law Society Handbook) When acting as a prosecutor, the lawyer has a duty to (a) act, in the exercise of any prosecutorial function including the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, fairly and dispassionately;1 (b) act in the spirit of the decision of Mr. Justice Rand in Boucher v. R., which is to say to seek justice, not merely to strive to obtain a conviction and to present to the court in a firm and fair manner evidence that the lawyer considers to be credible and relevant; (c) not prevent or impede one charged with an offence or in peril of such a charge from being represented by counsel or from communicating at reasonable times with counsel; and (d) disclose to defence counsel or to the party charged, if unrepresented, in a full, fair and timely fashion, before, during and after a trial, as circumstances may dictate, all such matters as are required to be disclosed in accordance with the policies and standards of Crown disclosure determined, from time to time, by law or by directive of the Attorney General, whether such disclosures may tend to show guilt or innocence or would affect punishment. Interestingly enough, this is on the website of Nova Scotia, a province whose Justice System is as beleaguered as Saskatchewan regarding corruption and cover-ups. |
| The Miazga letters to his co-conspirators |
. Dr. Fraser who is a psychiatrist with
the Royal Ottawa Hospital . . .$1,000.00 per day for testifying
and $150 an hour for reports and preparation . . .travel expenses
. . . It is my view that the evidence of Ms. Bunko-Ruys is essential to the prosecution of this matter and the evidence of Dr. Fraser or a witness similar to him would be highly desirable to try to explain some of the more bizarre aspects of the children's testimony. It is my view that these types of disclosures are going to become more and more frequent in the future and if nothing else, the testimony of these types of experts can slowly go towards educating the court and public as to the existence and legitimacy of these types of disclosures which up until now have been largely discounted not only by the public but by the authorities as well. In regards to the witness on ritual and Satanic abuse, I have canvassed locally and although there are people with experience in this area, no one comes close to the stature of someone such as Dr. Fraser in terms of his experience and knowledge in the area. There are two or three other persons who have been suggested as possible witnesses but Dr. Fraser seems to be the best candidate in my view. I would ask that you advise me as soon as possible as to what to arrangements I could go ahead to make as this case is scheduled to begin in October and of course I am on leave until that time and must make arrangements with these witnesses quickly. Yours truly, Matthew K. Miazga, MCM:cd
. . . Yours truly cc to Carol Bunko-Ruys What they are saying in the law journals: Conflicts of interest |The Seven Deadly Sins of prosecutors | Lessons from the Proulx case | Courageous prosecutor Terry Hinz | Hansen | Quinney | Defence lawyers who perhaps love the Crown too much : Holgate | Dufour | Axworthy | the lawyers in the following waltzes of their clients to guilty verdicts: | Howard Gowan | Leon Walchuk | Don Smith | Jay Watson |
|
E-mail injusticebusters