Imagine Justice, Taking Its Due Course

"I want to make it very clear that the defence position is this: the bias, lack of independence and partiality we allege in this case taints this officer's evidence from the outset and that includes the scene views, measurements, et cetera."
Natsis trial defence lawyer, Michael Edelson

Imagine if a lawyer was involved in a fatal accident and it was clear that the fault was with the lawyer driving the vehicle that plowed into another car. Imagine that lawyer behaving in an aggressively offensive manner toward the representative of law and order, the police officer who responded to the accident. Imagine that lawyer arguing the law and his Constitutional rights to the police constable, and what the result would be. The lawyer, teaching the police officer how he should be reacting to the situation, how he should be dispatching his professional duties.

Imagine a police officer sitting in a courtroom at a trial where someone has been charged with a criminal offence relating to the death of another motorist whom the alleged individual responsible has killed as a result of having made the decision to drive while under the toxic influence of alcohol consumption. Imagine the person charged having retained the services of an experienced criminal lawyer. Imagine the police officer lecturing the attorney on his uncommonly uncivil, insultingly slanderous manner during questioning.

Now imagine the police constable, speaking deliberately and calmly, turning occasionally to the presiding justice, to make the observation that the lawyer for the defence is clearly biased, lacks independence and partiality, and seeks to subvert the course of justice. And in so doing appears to be in a position of conflict of interest, for the point of the trial is to ensure that justice is seen to be done. Insisting that perfectly valid evidence be expunged from the record, balancing the equation in favour of acquittal of the charges brought against his client, the lawyer makes a mockery of the law and toys with justice.

Crown prosecutor John Ramsay, in the trial of Pembroke dentist Christy Natsis charged with having driven intoxicated, not in full possession of her faculties, and being responsible therefore for crossing the centre line to crash into a vehicle driving in the opposite direction to her own and killing 50-year-old Bryan Casey on Highway 17 near Arnprior, on March 31, 2011, has obviously depended on the expert testimony of Const. Kelly to support the Crown's position in the charges brought to bear.

OPP Const. Shawn Kelly's testimony and evidence was to have played a rather prominent place in the Crown's case against Ms. Natsis. To present Const. Kelly as an expert in a number of areas, including the interpretation of telling details presented at the scene of the crime; tire marks, motor vehicle positioning, debris, and evaluating damage sustained by both vehicles and their roadside positions. His expert testimony would serve to implicate Ms. Natsis without a shadow of a doubt.

On the other hand, individuals charged with crimes against society often come from the lower edges of society and they must rely on court-appointed lawyers who are often not very senior in their profession and therefore not too experienced in manipulation of the law. The same cannot be said for upper-class malfeasants whose wealth allows them to hire experienced criminal lawyers who have gained a reputation for having their clients cleared as a result of pinpointing technicalities under the law which they work to their advantage.

Const. Kelley has pointed out that in some areas of evidentiary interpretation he does not have the requisite skills to act as an expert, in which instances others who are in possession of those professional skills would be called upon to augment his own expert testimony in areas where there is full confidence in his capabilities. The lawyer for the defence would much prefer that the presiding Justice accept lawyer Edelson's argument that lacking skills in some areas, disqualifies Const. Kelly in all areas of expert testimony.

In this manner, more or less dismantling the case that the Crown has put forward; emasculating the professional reputation of Const. Kelly, convincing Ontario Court Justice Neil Kozloff that following the minute interpretation of lawyer Edelson's reasoning, the client who has pleaded not guilty to impaired driving, driving with a blood-alcohol level two and a half times over the legal limit and dangerous driving, all causing death -- is guilty of nothing whatever, because her "Constitutional rights" were abrogated.

The presumption of innocence until proven guilty under Canadian jurisprudence has been transformed into innocence by serendipitous default, since the accused cannot be proven guilty because her lawyer claims the arresting officer was 'biased', and that interrupting a forty-minute client-lawyer conversation under the conditions that prevailed that night, had caused a miscarriage of justice.