My professional title is ‘Barrister and Solicitor’. My purpose is better described as Criminal Lawyer or Criminal Defence Counsel. Lawyers who act as criminal defence counsel directly serve their clients but also play a key role in guarding Canada’s essential characteristic as a ‘free and democratic society’. [1]
Criminal lawyers work daily with issues touching directly upon individual ‘life, liberty and security of the person’ and the ‘principles of fundamental justice’ [2] such as the presumption of innocence which was referred to long ago as the ‘golden thread’ running through our criminal law[3] a doctrinal recognition that in a free society ‘it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer’. [4]
I consider it an honour and a privilege to perform this duty within the criminal justice system.
- Section 1. of the Charter: “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”↵
- Section 7. of the Charter: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”↵
- See R. v. Sinclair, paragraph 156, for example: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2010/2010scc35/2010scc35.html
156 The presumption of innocence, described as the “one golden thread” that runs “throughout the web of the English Criminal Law” (Woolmington v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1935] A.C. 462 (U.K. H.L.), at p. 481, per Lord Sankey), was recognized by this Court as the “single most important organizing principle in criminal law” (R. v. P. (M.B.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 555 (S.C.C.), at p. 577). Now constitutionally entrenched in s. 11(d) of the Charter, the presumption of innocence ensures that the state must meet its heavy burden before an accused person will be subjected to the consequences of a criminal conviction:
In light of the gravity of these consequences, the presumption of innocence is crucial. It ensures that until the State proves an accused’s guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, he or she is innocent. This is essential in a society committed to fairness and social justice. The presumption of innocence confirms our faith in humankind; it reflects our belief that individuals are decent and law-abiding members of the community until proven otherwise.
(R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103 (S.C.C.), at p. 120, per Dickson C.J.)↵
- See R. v. Lepage, paragraphs 48-49, for example: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1995/1995canlii123/1995canlii123.html
48 While the presumption of innocence has endured in our criminal justice system since the country’s inception, it was clearly identified and recognized in Woolmington v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1935] A.C. 462 (H.L.).
49 The rationale for this principle was understood long before then. As early as the 18th century, Blackstone asserted his oft-repeated statement that “it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer” (W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Law of England (1897), Book IV, Chap. 27, at p. 358).↵