Trust in a nation’s justice system is based on the principle that its citizens are awarded fair and equal treatment under the law. Unfortunately, Canada falls short of this important standard of due-process in all cases. Ninety percent of the nation’s criminal crimes are settled through a plea bargaining process that lacks accountability on the part of those pursuing this adjudication in our courts. To correct this injustice and bring forward accountability, parliament needs to pass legislation that protects the rights of due process. The proposed legislation below, titled, “The Bill of Integrity,” was first drafted by myself in 1999. Looked at by members of parliament at the time, it was forwarded to the Attorney General and the Minister of Justice in 2002. Although I was informed that there were no specific provisions regarding plea bargains that had to be followed, the response I received stated there was no need for such legislation.
The reasons given on why this proposal would not enhance the integrity of the legal profession and the courts were as follows…(1)“The vast majority of dealings between Crown attorneys and defence counsel are already characterized by the utmost of professional honesty, courtesy, and integrity in criminal court proceedings.” —(2)“While adversaries, they are nonetheless bound by their professional codes of conduct and procedural rules.” —(3)“While counsel on both sides are occasionally forced to abandon a previously agreed to sentence submission, they do so for valid and ethical reasons, such as client instructions or the emergence of new facts.”
Modefied, but equal in its purpose, a new draft has now been updated with one change, which I will explain when I address the government’s reasons for not supporting the original proposal in 2002.
“The Bill of Integrity”
(Plea-bargain)
(1) —If a plea of ‘Guilty, is brought before the courts; it must be accompanied with a signed document that outlines in specific terms; both the charge and the length of sentence agreed to by the parties involved.
(2) —All agreed upon evidence must be submitted in writing at time of sentencing, this includes any preliminary hearings where such evidence is proven and has been agreed to by all parties involved. If necessary and agreed upon, oral submissions can be made and must become part of the public record.
(3) —Signatures of the rightfully involved parties are deemed to be the following:
[a] –The Defence Attorney
[b] –The Defendant (If choosing to proceed without counsel, must sign off in space provided for defense attorney; stating: “Acting as own counsel.”
[c] –The Prosecuting Attorney
[d] –The Sentencing Judge
The purpose of this bill is to ensure the integrity of the plea bargaining process across the country. The legislation would strengthen the principles of “Due Process” and ensure that the rights of all citizens are protected, including the accused who’s acceptance to the sentence being offered would be presented to the court for its approval. This would enhance the integrity of the legal profession and the courts respect for the process.
Note: The change made from the original proposal, is the removal of the, “Victim” as a party to the plea-bargain. After consultation and thought, I have concluded that this change is not only warranted, but needed. At trial, a victim or family member has the ability to make a presentation before the court, (Victim impact statement) a right that is absolutely necessary and proper. This right also exists in cases where a plea-bargain is being considered, which again, is a proper and just way for a victim to be heard. However, in keeping with the fairness of a trial, a victim, who can give testimony and present the court with a victim impact statement, cannot hold the court hostage due to any personal animosity they may hold against the accused. At a non-jury trial, the prosecution and defence make their cases, and a judge determines guilt or innocence based on evidence both given and challenged. In the case of a plea bargain, a signed agreement qualifies the evidence and the length of sentence being sought, something the the defendant must agree to. Once presented to the court, the judge can either sign off or refuse the plea, and if the latter is chosen, can ask the defendant if he/she wishes to consider a new agreement or go to trial.
In most cases defendants have little knowledge of procedural rules used in a courtroom, which puts them at the mercy of the lawyers and judges in charge. If the defendant is not informed of his charter rights on any one procedure, due process can easily be cast aside without the accused realizing it. (e.g.) On the dismissal of the proposed bill I submitted, one explanation offered for its denial was: “an offender, if found guilty, has the right to make a submission to the presiding judge on what his or her sentence should be. (One would assume an acceptance of guilt brought to a court under a plea bargain would entail the same right) If the sentencing judge in my case had asked me about the sentencing offer presented to me by the attorneys, I would have made it known…on the spot)
Now let’s take a closer look at the three reasons given for dismissing the need for a “Bill of Integrity, and consider the response I added to each:
(1) “The vast majority of dealings between Crown attornerys and defence counsel are already characterized by the upmost of professional honesty, courtesy, and integrity in criminal court proceedings;” and, (2)“While adversaries, they are nonetheless bound by their professional codes of conduct and procedual rules.” …In “Poor Man’s Justice, and in my posts, it is clear why these self-serving narratives have no merit. Even if the manipulation and deception used in my case is chosen to be disbelieved, the question left to be asked is, “Could this happen when there is no accountability in the process?”
The third explanation given as to why the justice system believes there is no need for legislation on the matter of intergrity is even more astonishing!
(3) “While counsel on both sides are occasionally forced to abandon a previously agreed to sentence submission, they do so for valid and ethical reasons, such as client instructions or the emergence of new facts.” …This far reaching explanation has absolutely no bearing on why a bill that requires the signatures of all parties involved in a plea-bargain should not exist! If a plea is to be abandoned, there is no plea! Remember, it is the defendant who must agree to the plea, and if, for any reason it is taken off the table, he/she must be told why. This includes any new facts as suggested. If new evidence is presented to the bench before the agreed upon charge and sentencing is completed; the judge can withhold his/her signature and order the case to trial…Or a new plea can be submitted with the parties signatures attached in cases where the new evidence is undisputed.
Manufactured senerios, like “new evidence” being passed off as a reason to avoid accountability muddy’s the waters. In a trial setting, new evidence by the prosecution, if it exists, is presented in court and can be questioned by the defence. If you look closely at this third excuse given to avoid accountability, it suggests sentencing could proceed on evidence that has not been subjected to cross-examination. Such a blantant disregard for due process leaves one to wonder if it is the presence of a signed plea-bargain that the justice system fears. Manipulating someone into a plea, knowing it does not exist; is about as far away from being fair and just as you can get…but to do so while maintaining an ability to vilify, degrade, and dehumanize someone with manufactured and unquestioned innuendo given to the public is an outrageous and disgraceful act, and criminal in itself. In my case, government paid lawyers sat at both tables…prosecution and defence, innuendo and falsehoods went unquestioned, such as my panic attack that happened days before the assault, which was falsly described as occuring ten years earlier. On the other hand, the leading psychatrist’s conclusion in the forensic report, believed my severe depression should be a considered factor in sentencing…this went unmentioned by the judge, who’s only reference to the doctor’s conclusion was the amount of alcohol I had consumed that night.
To be clear, the mitigating circumstances detailing the depth of my depression does not equate to innocence. Whether I was aware of the enormity of my actions or not, they were wrong and retribution was warranted. For that reason alone, I have always stated that this story is not about guilt or innocence, but the manipulation of a citizen’s right and the denial of due process. It was this misdirected; (“The end justifies the means,”) approach to justice that led to a decade of on going deception in the courts and penal institutions, which unfortunately was made possible due to a lack of accountability, which could have been avoided with a signed, “Plea Bargain.”
In upcoming post I will reveal more interviews that were conducted after my release, and ask the question: Who is policing the justice system?