What do you wish the public knew about the justice system?

After three years in civil and criminal law private practice in my hometown in Quebec, I transferred from the Reserve force to the Regular force as a Legal officer in the Canadian Armed Forces, where I practice military law in all of its different components, both in Canada and overseas.  As a regional military prosecutor, I quickly learned that the military justice system is based on the criminal justice system and incorporates generally its common law rules and criminal law principles, although its uniqueness stem from its Code of service discipline.  As such, the Code contains service offences, some of which only exist in the military context, such as insubordination, absence without leave and abuse of subordinate. More importantly, the Code contains provisions that ensures the respect of the accused person’s charter rights, with sections that aims at strengthening judicial independence. The decorum at court martial, and the portability of the Court, which hear cases anywhere in Canada and abroad where troops are located, evidently reflect military life.  In other words, the system is designed, like its criminal counterpart, to be fair and compliant with the Charter, while retaining some of its military qualities. The Supreme Court of Canada has recognised on a few occasions the legitimacy and purpose of the Military Justice system, in particular in the seminal case R. v. Généreux, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 259. The system has evolved over the years and adapted to Canadian values. For example, procedures found in the Criminal Code that aimed at protecting the privacy and dignity of victims of sexual assault apply during trial proceedings at court martial.  Further, the National Defence Act now contains provisions that ensure that victims have a voice at sentencing.

What advice do you have for counsel who appear before you?

Although all judges would agree that preparation of counsel is key, I also believe that counsel should prepare and present their case focussing on the interests of their client, not to advance a personal agenda, whether they represent the Crown or the accused person. I would therefore tell counsel to leave their ego at the door.  Secondly, counsel should focus on the crux of the issue. Judges do not want to hear a lengthy and detailed summary of the evidence, or to receive a lecture on the law.  I personally want to know counsel’s position on the case, their interpretation of the law when relevant, and what the case turns on. This assists me in ensuring that nothing was missed – indeed, well though-out submissions are usually brief, to the point. They can make a case, as they may bring a perspective does not consider by the trier of fact. Lastly, an “adversarial” system is not synonymous with “confrontational”.  Opposite counsel can work together in advancing properly, professionally and successfully the interest of their respective client.  Collegiality goes a long way in efficacy, and it brings greater credibility to the justice system and to the legal profession as a whole.