Anda di halaman 1dari 11

Special Committee on Lawyers Duties with Respect to Property Relevant to a Crime or Offence March 21, 2 Report to Convocation Purpose

of Report" Discussion Prepare# $y the Policy Secretariat * for discussion at April 25, 2002 Convocation (deferred to May 23, 2002 Convocation)

2!

%&'L( O) CO*%(*%S INT !"#CTI!N$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ T%& C!MMITT&&'( ) !C&(( $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ *irst (teps$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ T+e Issues$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ T+e Marc+ 22, 200, "raft$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Call *or Input And T+e esponse$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ (C!)& !* T%& ) !)!(&" #-&$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ evisions *ollo.in/ evie. of (u01issions$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ ules of !t+er 2urisdictions $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ "iscussion of )articular )rovisions$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ (#MMA 3$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ "&CI(I!N *! C!N4!CATI!N$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ A))&N"I5 A 6 (#7MI((I!N !* T%& !NTA I! C !8N ATT! N&3(' A((!CIATI!N $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ A))&N"I5 7 9 (#7MI((I!N !* T%& ATT! N&3 :&N& A- !* !NTA I!$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ A))&N"I5 C 6 ) !)!(&" #-& !* ) !*&((I!NA- C!N"#CT ;$0,(,0) 9 (,<) AN" C!MM&NTA 3$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 3 +*%ROD,C%+O* ,$ T+e (pecial Co11ittee on -a.yers' "uties .it+ espect to )roperty elevant to a Cri1e or !ffence, in accordance .it+ Convocation's 1andate, +as prepared a proposed rule and co11entary$ 2$ T+e Co11ittee is re=uestin/ t+at Convocation revie. t+e proposal and approve t+e rule and co11entary in its present for1 or as a1ended 0y Convocation as an addition to t+e Rules of Professional Conduct$ 3$ T+e 1e10ers of t+e Co11ittee are 0enc+ers :avin Mac>en?ie (c+air), (tep+en 7ind1an, Todd "uc+ar1e, Niels !rtved, T+e %on$ (ydney o0ins, %eat+er oss and Clayton u0y, as .ell as Alan :old (president of t+e Cri1inal -a.yers Association), )aul -indsay ("irector, Cro.n -a. !ffice 6 Cri1inal, Ministry of t+e Attorney :eneral) and Tony -oparco (president of t+e !ntario Cro.n Attorneys' Association)$ T+e Co11ittee is /rateful to )aul )erell of 8eir @ *oulds in Toronto, for +is assistance in draftin/ t+e proposed rule and co11entary$ ;$ T+is report includes an eAplanation of t+e process follo.ed 0y t+e Co11ittee discussion of t+e central issues t+e Co11ittee identified discussion of t+e input received fro1 la.yers and t+e pu0lic on t+e draft of t+e proposed rule and co11entary, released for co11ent in Marc+ 200, co11ent on t+e scope of t+e rule and co11entary and t+e lan/ua/e of certain provisions %-( COMM+%%((S PROC(SS )irst Steps 5$ T+e Co11ittee .as appointed on Nove10er 2B, 2000 follo.in/ t+e .it+dra.al of a professional 1isconduct co1plaint a/ainst la.yer >ennet+ Murray of Aurora$ T+ Co11ittee .as c+ar/ed .it+ eAa1inin/ la.yers' et+ical duties in connection .it+ property relevant to a cri1e and devisin/ a rule to address t+e relevant professional conduct issues$ <$ T+e Co11ittee +as 1et on t.elve occasions$ )rior to its first 1eetin/, t+e Co11ittee revie.ed eAtensive 1aterial t+at included eAistin/ rules and standards in ot+er Curisdictions and acade1ic .ritin/ and case la. on t+e su0Cect$ T+e Co11ittee t+anDs Austin Cooper E$ C$ and Ian (cott, t+e defence counsel and Cro.n counsel respectively in R. v. Murray .in .+ic+ a c+ar/e of atte1ptin/ to o0struct Custice .as dis1issed), for 1aDin/ infor1ation fro1 t+eir files availa0le for t+is revie.$ F$ T+e Co11ittee .as fortunate to receive per1ission fro1 2ustice Mic+el )roulA and "avid -ayton (a cri1inal la.yer no. practisin/ in 4ancouver) to revie. a c+apter on la.yers' duties .it+ respect to incri1inatin/ p+ysical evidence fro1 t+eir t+en unpu0lis+ed 0ooD, Ethics and Canadian Criminal Law, .+ic+ +as since 0een pu0lis+ed 0y Ir.in -a.$ T+is 1aterial provided a very useful discussion of t+e su0Cect$ G$ Al0erta is t+e only Curisdiction in Canada t+us far to adopt a rule on la.yers' duties .it+ respect to property +avin/ potential evidentiary value$ T+e Co11ittee also revie.ed t+e rules of several #nited (tates state 0ar associations and t+e standards for defence counsel adopted 0y t+e A1erican 7ar Association$ B$ #sin/ t+is infor1ation as a startin/ point, t+e Co11ittee 0e/an to Hscope outI t+e rule and .as assisted in t+is respect 0y a detailed list of issues prepared 0y Alan :old, .+ic+ .as of /reat +elp to t+e Co11ittee in its efforts to address t+ose issues in a clear and enforcea0le rule and eAplanatory co11entary$ %he +ssues ,0$ T+e issues t+at t+e Co11ittee identified and atte1pted to address included t+e follo.in/J t+e role of t+e la.yer as advocate and t+e la.yer's duties to t+e client and t+e ad1inistration of CusticeK t+e funda1ental i1portance of solicitor6client confidentiality and privile/e in t+e relations+ip 0et.een and a la.yer and client in situations in .+ic+ t+e la.yer learns of or is asDed to receive property relevant to a cri1e or offenceK t+e distinction 0et.een t+e la.yer ac=uirin/ infor1ation a0out property and t+e la.yer ac=uirin/ possession of suc+ propertyK

t+e possi0ility t+at t+e la.yer's duty 1ay vary dependin/ on .+et+er t+e evidence is inculpatory, eAculpatory, or partially inculpatory and partially eAculpatoryK t+e possi0ility t+at t+e la.yer's duty 1ay vary dependin/ on t+e nature of t+e property (for eAa1ple, .+et+er t+e rule s+ould apply only to t+e instru1entalitiesor proceeds of cri1e, as su//ested in so1e A1erican aut+orities, or .+et+er it s+ould apply to all property (includin/ docu1ents, electronic co11unications, and co1puteri?ed infor1ation) relevant to a cri1e)K t+e possi0ility t+at t+e la.yer's duty 1ay vary dependin/ on .+et+er t+e cri1e or offence to .+ic+ t+e property is relevant is t+e su0Cect of an eAistin/ c+ar/e, or investi/ation, or is undetectedK t+e circu1stances re=uirin/, and t+e ti1in/ and 1et+od of, disclosure of property to la. enforce1ent aut+oritiesK t+e necessity and scope of, and t+e la.yer's 1et+od of seeDin/, advice fro1 senior counsel or t+e -a. (ociety on issues respectin/ possession and disclosure of property$ %he March 22, 2 1 Draft ,,$ !n Marc+ 22, 200,, t+e Co11ittee presented a report to Convocation .it+ a proposed rule and co11entary reco11ended 0y t+e 1aCority of t+e Co11ittee$ T+e report also =uoted a proposed rule reco11ended 0y t.o dissentin/ 1e10ers of t+e Co11ittee .+o represent t+e Ministry of t+e Attorney :eneral and t+e !ntario Cro.n Attorneys' Association, .+ose su01ission to t+e Co11ittee is attac+ed as &ppen#i/ &$ As reco11ended 0y t+e Co11ittee, Convocation directed t+e Co11ittee to 1aDe its report includin/ t+e proposed rule and co11entary .idely availa0le to t+e pu0lic and t+e profession for .ritten co11ents$ ,2$ T+e Co11ittee .as atte1ptin/ to acco1plis+ t.o purposes .it+ t+e Marc+ 22, 200, proposed rule and co11entary$ *irst, t+e Co11ittee proposed a 1andatory rule t+at could 0e enforced t+rou/+ discipline proceedin/s if 0reac+ed$ (econd, t+e Co11ittee proposed an eAtensive co11entary to provide /uidance to la.yers in t+e 1ultitude of circu1stances in .+ic+ issues 1ay arise$ T+e proposed co11entary .as desi/ned to dra. to t+e la.yer's attention t+e 1any distinctions and factors t+at s+ould 0e taDen into account, and provide advice on t+e approac+ t+e la.yer s+ould adopt, .+en confronted .it+ issues relatin/ to property relevant to a cri1e$ ,3$ T+is 1odel .ould 0e consistent .it+ t+e -a. (ociety's current Rules of Professional Conduct, .+ic+ ca1e into force on Nove10er ,, 2000$ Call )or +nput &n# %he Response ,;$ T+e proposed rule and co11entary (includin/ t+e eAplanatory report provided to Convocation on Marc+ 22, 200,) .ere 1ade availa0le to t+e pu0lic and t+e profession t+rou/+ t+e (ociety's .e0 site and a notice in t+e Ontario Reports$ A press release .as also issued to t+e 1edia co11entin/ on t+e 1andate of t+e Co11ittee and t+e availa0ility of t+e proposed rule and co11entary for pu0lic co11ent$ (elected le/al or/ani?ations and t+e Attorney :eneral of !ntario, "avid ($ 3oun/, received a .ritten re=uest for co11ent on t+e proposed rule and co11entary$ ,5$ A nu10er of or/ani?ations and individuals 0ot+ .it+in and outside t+e profession responded to t+e call for input$ T+e Co11ittee received over 25 letters or e61ail co11unications$ Most contained t+ou/+tful co11ents on t+e proposed rule and co11entary$ , T+e Co11ittee pu0licly t+anDs all t+ose .+o responded to t+e call for input$ ,<$ Many of t+ose respondin/ (includin/ t+e Attorney :eneral and various c+iefs of police) eApressed concerns a0out certain sections of t+e proposed co11entary t+at .ould per1it t+e la.yer to 1aintain te1porary possession of property relevant to a cri1e or offence in certain defined circu1stances$ T+ese respondents preferred t+e approac+ taDen 0y t+e -a. (ociety of Al0erta in its rules of conduct, .+ic+ is reflected in t+e position of t+et.o 1e10ers of t+e Co11ittee .+o represent t+e Ministry of t+e Attorney :eneral of !ntario and t+e !ntario Cro.n Attorneys' Association$ T+e Attorney :eneral's su01ission is attac+ed as &ppen#i/ '$ !t+er respondents (includin/ t+e Advocates' (ociety) preferred t+e approac+ reco11ended 0y t+e Co11ittee, t+ou/+ t+ey also 1ade constructive su//estions for .ays in .+ic+ t+e proposed rule and co11entary 1i/+t 0e i1proved$ ,F$ T+e Co11ittee assessed t+e input a/ainst t+e Co11ittee's proposal and t+e Dey issues ori/inally identified 0y t+e Co11ittee$ T+is led to revisions to t+e Marc+ 22 proposals, .+ic+ are discussed in t+e neAt section of t+e report$ , A list of t+e or/ani?ations and individuals respondin/ to t+e call for input and t+eir responses is availa0le t+rou/+ t+e -a. (ociety's )olicy (ecretariat upon re=uest$ F SCOP( O) %-( PROPOS(D R,L( Revisions )ollowin0 Review of Su$missions ,G$ evisions to t+e Marc+ 22, 200, proposals reco11ended 0y t+e Co11ittee .ere 0ot+ su0stantive and structural, and include t+e follo.in/J (i) eApandin/ t+e rule .it+ teAt fro1 t+e co11entary, t+ere0y convertin/ ele1ents of /uidance and advice to 1andatory o0li/ations, (ii) reor/ani?in/ t+e concepts in t+e rule so t+at t+ey are set out in a 1ore lo/ical se=uence, (iii) clarifyin/ t+e circu1stances in .+ic+ a la.yer 1ay taDe or Deep te1porary possession of property relevant to a cri1e or offence for use at trial, 0y specifyin/ t+at t+e la.yer 1ay do so only .+ere t+e la.yer deter1ines t+at to do so 1ay prevent a .ron/ful conviction and t+at t+is use of t+e property .ould 0e si/nificantly di1inis+ed if t+e property .ere disclosed to la. enforce1ent aut+orities, and (iv) addin/ a re=uire1ent t+at a la.yer .+o proposes to taDe or Deep te1porary possession of property eit+er for testin/ or for use at trial 1ay do so only if t+e la.yer pro1ptly seeDs and receives aut+ori?ation fro1 a co11ittee of t+e -a. (ociety t+at t+e la.yer s+ould 0e per1itted to do so$ T+ese revisions respond to concerns eApressed in su01issions received 0y t+e Co11ittee, includin/ t+e su01ission of t+e Attorney :eneral$ T+e t+ird and fourt+ revisions, in particular, respond to su01issions t+at a la.yer s+ould 0e per1itted to taDe or Deep te1porary possession of property relevant to a cri1e or offence for use at trial, if at all, only in narro.ly defined circu1stances, and t+at t+e decision s+ould not 0e 1ade eAclusively on t+e 0asis of t+e su0Cective Cud/1ent of t+e particular la.yer involved in t+e case$ ,B$ T+e aut+ors of a nu10er of su01issions (includin/ t+e !ntario Association of C+iefs of )olice and several ot+er police services), ar/ued t+at a la.yer s+ould never 0e per1itted to retain possession of property relevant to a cri1e for purposes of testin/ or for use at trial, 0ut rat+er s+ould 0e re=uired to turn t+e property over to la. enforce1ent aut+orities in every case$

20$ T+e 1aCority of t+e co11ittee concluded t+at suc+ an approac+ .ould fail to reco/ni?e t+e eAtensive ran/e of circu1stances in .+ic+ issues can arise in t+is area, t+e funda1ental i1portance of t+e independence of t+e 0ar, and t+e i1portant role of defence counsel in preventin/ .ron/ful convictions$ Alt+ou/+ it .as t+e Murray case t+at /ave rise to t+e creation of t+e Co11ittee, t+e Co11ittee .as 1indful of t+e fact t+at any rule and co11entary adopted 0y Convocation .ould apply to a vast array of ot+er situations$ It is not difficult to conceive of circu1stances, for eAa1ple, in .+ic+ a la.yer 1ay 0e /iven a docu1ent t+at eAposes t+e falsity of a Cro.n .itness's evidence 0ut .+ic+, if turned over to la. enforce1ent aut+orities, .ould ena0le t+e Cro.n .itness to tailor +is or +er testi1ony in suc+ a .ay as to 1aDe t+e la.yer's client vulnera0le to a .ron/ful conviction$ In suc+ cases (.+ic+ t+e Co11ittee eApects .ould 0e rare) to per1it t+e la.yer to retain t+e docu1ent for use at trial .ould, in t+e Co11ittee's vie., advance rat+er t+an o0struct t+e cause of Custice$ 2,$ A/ain, if t+e Co11ittee's proposal is accepted, t+e la.yer .ould 0e per1itted to retain t+e docu1ent te1porarily for use at trial only if a co11ittee of t+e -a. (ociety esta0lis+ed for t+e purpose .ere to aut+ori?e t+e la.yer to do so$ Rules of Other 1uris#ictions 22$ In addition to respondin/ to t+e issues raised in t+e su01issions, t+e Co11ittee eAa1ined 1ore closely t+e rules of ot+er Curisdictions$ 23$ Most codes of professional conduct are silent on t+e su0Cect of la.yers' duties .it+ respect to property relevant to a cri1e$ As 1entioned a0ove, Al0erta is t+e only Canadian Curisdiction t+at +as t+us far adopted a rule on t+e su0Cect$ ule 20 of C+apter ,0 of t+e -a. (ociety of Al0erta's Code of Professional Conduct reads as follo.sJ A la.yer 1ust not counsel or participate inJ (a) t+e o0tainin/ of evidence or infor1ation 0y ille/al 1eansK (0) t+e falsification of evidenceK (c) t+e destruction of property +avin/ potential evidentiary value or t+e alteration of property so as to affect its evidentiary valueK or (d) t+e conceal1ent of property +avin/ potential evidentiary value in a cri1inal proceedin/$ Commentary -a.yers 1ust up+old t+e la. and refrain fro1 conduct t+at 1i/+t .eaDen respect for t+e la. or interfere .it+ its fair ad1inistration$ (ee C+apter 1, Relationship of the Lawyer to Society and the Justice System$ A la.yer 1ust t+erefore seeD to 1aintain t+e inte/rity of evidence and its availa0ility t+rou/+ appropriate procedures to opposin/ parties$ T+e .ord 2property3 in para/rap+s (c) and (d) includes co1puteri?ed infor1ation$ L$ )ara/rap+ (d) applies to cri1inal 1atters due to t+e dan/er of o0struction of Custice if evidence in a cri1inal 1atter is .it++eld$ 8+ile a la.yer +as no o0li/ation to disclose t+e 1ere eAistence of suc+ evidence, it .ould 0e unet+ical to accept possession of it and t+en conceal or destroy it$ T+e la.yer 1ust t+erefore advise so1eone .is+in/ to deliver potential evidence t+at, if possession is accepted 0y t+e la.yer, it .ill 0e necessary to turn t+e evidence over to appropriate aut+orities (unless it consists of co11unications or docu1ents t+at are privile/ed)$ 8+en surrenderin/ cri1inal evidence, +o.ever, a la.yer 1ust protect confidentiality attac+in/ to t+e circu1stances in .+ic+ t+e 1aterial .as ac=uired, .+ic+ 1ay re=uire t+at t+e la.yer act anony1ously or t+rou/+ a t+ird party$ T+ere is no e=uivalent o0li/ation of disclosure .it+ respect to evidence in a civil proceedin/ in li/+t of t+e eAtensive discovery process provided 0y t+e ules of Court$ %o.ever, it is improper to $loc4 #isclosure of #ocuments or other evi#ence #uly re5ueste# pursuant to rules of pro#uction or practice6 276 %he approach a#opte# in the &l$erta rules #iffers mar4e#ly from the approach a#opte# in t+e A1erican 7ar Association Cri1inal 2ustice (ection (tandards$ (tandard ;6;$< on )+ysical &vidence reads as follo.sJ (a) "efense counsel .+o receives a p+ysical ite1 under circu1stances i1plicatin/ a client in cri1inal conduct s+ould disclose t+e location of or s+ould deliver t+at ite1 to la. enforce1ent aut+orities onlyJ (,) if re=uired 0y la. or court order, or (2) as provided in para/rap+ (d)$ (0) #nless re=uired to disclose, defense counsel s+ould return t+e ite1 to t+e source fro1 .+o1 defense counsel received it, eAcept as provided in para/rap+ (c) and (d)$ In returnin/ t+e ite1 to t+e source, defense counsel s+ould advise t+e source of t+e le/al conse=uences pertainin/ to possession or destruction of t+e ite1$ Defense counsel shoul# also prepare a written recor# of these events for his or her file, $ut shoul# not 0ive the source a copy of such recor#6 (c) "efense counsel 1ay receive t+e ite1 for a reasona0le period of ti1e durin/ .+ic+ defense counselJ (,) intends to return it to t+e o.nerK (2) reasona0ly fears t+at return of t+e ite1 to t+e source .ill result in destruction of t+e ite1K (3) reasona0ly fears t+at return of t+e ite1 to t+e source .ill result in p+ysical +ar1 to anyoneK (;) intends to test, eAa1ine, inspect, or use t+e ite1 in any .ay as part of defense counsel's representation of t+e clientK or (5) cannot return it to t+e source$ If defense counsel tests or eAa1ines t+e ite1, +e or s+e s+ould t+ereafter return it to t+e source unless t+ere is reason to 0elieve t+at t+e evidence 1i/+t 0e altered or destroyed or used to +ar1 anot+er or return is ot+er.ise i1possi0le$ If defense counsel retains t+e ite1, +e or s+e s+ould retain it in +is or +er la. office in a 1anner t+at does not i1pede t+e la.ful a0ility of la. enforce1ent aut+orities to o0tain t+e ite1$ (d) If t+e ite1 received is contra0and, i$e$, an ite1 possession of .+ic+ is in and of itself a cri1e suc+ as narcotics, defense counsel 1ay su//est t+at t+e client destroy it .+ere t+ere is no pendin/ case or investi/ation relatin/ to t+is evidence and .+ere suc+ destruction is clearly not in violation of any cri1inal statute$ If suc+ destruction is not per1itted 0y la. or if in defense counsel's Cud/1ent +e or s+e cannot retain t+e ite1, .+et+er or not it is contra0and, in a .ay t+at does not pose an unreasona0le risD of p+ysical +ar1 to anyone, defense counsel s+ould disclose t+e location of or s+ould deliver t+e ite1 to la. enforce1ent aut+orities$ (e) If defense counsel discloses t+e location of or delivers t+e ite1 to la. enforce1ent aut+orities under para/rap+s (a) or (d), or to a t+ird party under para/rap+ (c) (,), +e or s+e s+ould do so in t+e .ay 0est desi/ned to protect t+e client's interests$ 25$ T+e Co11ittee considered 0ot+ t+e Al0erta rule and t+e A7A "efence (tandards to 0e+elpful in for1ulatin/ its o.n rule$ T+e 1aCority of t+e Co11ittee concluded, +o.ever, t+at 0ot+ t+e Al0erta approac+ and t+e A7A "efence (tandards' approac+ could 0e i1proved upon$ 2<$ T+e concerns of t+e 1aCority a0out t+e Al0erta rule and co11entary 1ay 0e illustrated 0y an eAa1ple$ If a client .is+es to o0tain a la.yer's advice a0out t+e effect of a docu1ent and for.ards it to t+e la.yer as an e61ail attac+1ent, and t+e docu1ent H+as potential evidentiary value in a cri1inal proceedin/I, t+e la.yer .ould appear to +ave a duty under t+e Al0erta rule to turn over t+e docu1ent to t+e aut+oritiesK t+e rule does not see1 to allo. la.yers to return property to its source$ T+e la.yer's duty .ould see1 to 0e to turn over suc+ a docu1ent to t+e aut+orities .+et+er t+e docu1ent is eAculpatory oinculpatory$

2F$ (uc+ a rule, in t+e vie. of t+e 1aCority, .ould discoura/e persons fro1 seeDin/ le/al advice and representation and .ould tend to under1ine t+e independence of t+e 0ar 0y transfor1in/ la.yers into a/ents of t+e state$ 2G$ At t+e sa1e ti1e, t+e Co11ittee +ad concerns a0out certain features of t+e A7A "efence (tandard$ (pecifically, para/rap+ (c) (;) of t+e (tandard, .+ic+ .ould allo. defence counsel to receive and retain property .+enever t+ey intend to Huse t+e ite1 in any .ay as part of defense counsel's representation of t+e clientI, could in so1e circu1stances per1it defence counsel to retain property for an eAtended ti1e 9 as in t+e Murray case itself 9 .it+out any independent revie. of t+e effect of doin/ so on t+e ad1inistration of Custice$ Discussion of Particular Provisions %he Rule 2B$ T+e follo.in/ is t+e revised proposed rule on property relevant to a cri1e or offence, as reco11ended 0y t+e Co11ittee$ T+e proposed rule and co11entary in t+eir entirety are set out in &ppen#i/ C$ Rule 7 8 Relationship to the &#ministration of 1ustice 76 1 %-( L&9:(R &S &D;OC&%( Property Relevant to a Crime or Offence ;$0, (,0) A la.yer s+all not taDe or Deep possession of property relevant to a cri1e or offence, eAcept in accordance .it+ t+is rule$ (,,) A la.yer 1ay taDe or Deep te1porary possession of property relevant to a cri1e or offence only .+ereJ (a) it is necessary to do so to prevent t+e alteration, loss or destruction of t+e evidence, (0) it is necessary to do so to prevent p+ysical +ar1 to any person, (c) t+e client or t+e person possessin/ t+e property instructs t+e la.yer to pro1ptly arran/e for t+e property to 0e disclosed or delivered to t+e Cro.n or la. enforce1ent aut+orities, (d) t+e la.yer reasona0ly 0elieves it is in t+e interests of Custice t+at t+e property 0e eAa1ined or tested 0efore it is disclosed or delivered to t+e Cro.n or la. enforce1ent aut+orities, and t+e property 1ay 0e eAa1ined or tested .it+out alterin/ or destroyin/ its essential c+aracteristics, or (e) t+e la.yer reasona0ly 0elieves t+at a .ron/ful conviction 1ay 0e prevented if t+e property is first disclosed at trial, and t+is use of t+e property .ould 0e si/nificantly di1inis+ed if it .ere disclosed to t+e Cro.n or la. enforce1ent aut+orities 0efore t+e trial$ (,2) A la.yer 1ay taDe or Deep te1porary possession under su0rule (,,) (d) or (e) only if t+e la.yer +as 0een aut+ori?ed to do so 0y a co11ittee of t+e -a. (ociety esta0lis+ed 0y t+e Treasurer to decide .+et+er t+e la.yer 1ay taDe or Deep te1porary possession$ T+e la.yer 1ust seeD suc+ aut+ori?ation pro1ptly$ (,3) A la.yer .+o taDes or Deeps possession of property relevant to a cri1e or offence s+all not (a) counsel any alteration, conceal1ent, loss or destruction of t+e property, (0) alter, conceal, lose, or destroy t+e property, or (c) deal .it+ t+e property in a 1anner t+at t+ere are reasona0le /rounds to 0elieve .ould (i) o0struct Custice, or (ii) risD p+ysical +ar1 to any person$ (,;) A la.yer .+o taDes or Deeps property relevant to a cri1e or offence s+all /ive up possession of t+e evidence as soon as practical and only in accordance .it+ su0rules (,,)(d) or (e), (,5) or (,<)$ (,5) A la.yer in possession of property relevant to a cri1e or offence 1ay return t+e evidence to its source only if t+e la.yer is satisfied on reasona0le /rounds t+at t+e evidence .ill not 0e (a) altered, concealed, lost or destroyed or (0) used to cause p+ysical +ar1 to any person$ .,<) (u0Cect to su0rules (,0) 9 (,5), a la.yer in possession of property relevant to a cri1e or offence s+all disclose or deliver it to t+e Cro.n or la. enforce1ent aut+orities as soon as practica0le in all t+e circu1stances$ 30$ T+e rule deals .it+ t+e la.yer's actual possession of property$ T+e la.yer's Dno.led/e of t+e eAistence of property relevant to a cri1e or offence does not usually raise t+e difficult issues associated .it+ p+ysical possession of t+e property, suc+ as .+et+er t+e property 1ust 0e turned over to la. enforce1ent aut+orities$ As t+e co11entary 1aDes clear, infor1ation co11unicated to t+e la.yer 0y t+e client a0out property is /enerally protected 0y solicitor6client privile/e and t+e la.yer's duty of confidentiality and 1ust not 0e disclosed$ 3,$ T+e rule's underlyin/ t+e1e is avoidance of conduct t+at 1ay a1ount to an o0struction of Custice$ In a 0roader sense, t+e rule ens+rines la.yers' o0li/ations as Dey players in t+e proper ad1inistration of Custice$ T+e co11entary, discussed 0elo., reco/ni?es t+e possi0le tension 0et.een t+ese duties and t+e la.yer's duties of confidentiality and loyalty to t+e client$ 32$ T+e t+rust of t+e rule and co11entary is t+at la.yers /enerally s+ould not accept or retain property relevant to a cri1e or offence$ T+e rule reco/ni?es t+at in so1e circu1stances, t+e la.yer does not +ave a c+oice, for eAa1ple .+ere t+e client si1ply leaves t+e property at t+e la.yer's office$ T+e rule provides t+at la.yers 1ay taDe or Deep property relevant to a cri1e or offence only in very li1ited circu1stances and even t+en te1porarily$ 33$ T+e purposes for .+ic+ suc+ property 1ay 0e retained te1porarily are as follo.sJ To prevent t+e destruction of t+e property To prevent p+ysical +ar1 to any person To 1aDe arran/e1ents to transfer t+e property to aut+orities pursuant to instructions To eAa1ine or test t+e property To prevent a .ron/ful conviction 0y 1aDin/ use of t+e property at trial 3;$ T+e Co11ittee's discussions focussed on t+e 1erits of t+e fourt+ and fift+ of t+ese purposes$ 35$ T+e 1ain concern eApressed 0y t+e Cro.n counsel on t+e Co11ittee and 0y a nu10er of la. enforce1ent a/encies .+o 1ade su01issions, is t+at t+e la.yer's possession of t+e property, eit+er for testin/ or for use at trial, and t+e ti1in/ of t+e la.yer's disclosure of t+e property, could i1pin/e on t+e effectiveness of t+e investi/ation 0y t+e aut+orities and on t+e a0ility of t+e Cro.n to prosecute any c+ar/es laid t+at 1i/+t arise out of t+e investi/ation$ T+e circu1stances 1ay 0e a//ravated, for eAa1ple, if t+e property eAculpates anot+er accused, 0ut is +eld 0y t+e la.yer until t+e trial of +is or +er client$

3<$ T+e Cro.n counsel on t+e Co11ittee eApressed concern t+at t+e la.yer's possession of t+e property 1ay inappropriately affect a .+ole series of investi/atory and prosecutorial decisions t+at are 1ade at various sta/es of t+e proceedin/s up to and at trial, and t+at pu0lic confidence in t+e ad1inistration of Custice .ould not 0e en+anced 0y allo.in/ defence counsel to retain possession of property relevant to a cri1e or offence for testin/ or for use in t+e defence even te1porarily, and even in t+e narro. circu1stances referred to in t+e proposed co11entary$ 3F$ T+e Cro.n counsel also su//ested t+at la.yers .+o receive property relevant to a cri1e or offence s+ould never 0e allo.ed to return t+e property to its ori/inal source or location, 0ut s+ould rat+er 0e re=uired to turn over t+e property to la. enforce1ent aut+orities in every case$ 3G$ T+e rule and co11entary proposed 0y t+e Cro.n counsel (.+ic+ are 0ased in part on t+e applica0le rule and co11entary in t+e Law Society of &l$ertas Code of Professional Conduct, an# which in the Crowns counsels view are consistent with the law as articulate# in R. v Murray .2 <, 7= O6R6 .>#< ?77 .S6C616<< are set out in &ppen#i/ &6 >@6 %he maAority of the Committee preferre# to inclu#e in the proposed rule provisions t+at .ould allo. a la.yer in certain defined circu1stances to taDe or retain te1porary possession of property relevant to a cri1e or offence for t+e purpose of non6destructive testin/ or for use in t+e client's defence$ In all suc+ cases t+e rule .ould re=uire t+e la.yer pro1ptly to o0tain aut+ori?ation fro1 a co11ittee of t+e -a. (ociety t+at t+e la.yer s+ould 0e per1itted to retain te1porary possession for suc+ a purpose$ T+e Co11ittee's vie. .as infor1ed 0y t+e follo.in/ considerationsJ (a) T+e retention of t+e property in so1e circu1stances 1ay 0e necessary to esta0lis+ t+e client's innocence or to raise a reasona0le dou0t a0out t+e client's /uilt, for eAa1ple, 0y eAposin/ t+e falsity of evidence on .+ic+ t+e Cro.n reliesK (0) In so1e cases t+e disclosure of t+e property 0y defence counsel 1ay ena0le a .itness .+o +as falsely i1plicated t+e accused person to tailor +is or +er testi1ony .it+ a vie. to securin/ a .ron/ful convictionK (c) T+e proposed rule and co11entary 1aDe it clear t+at t+e circu1stances in .+ic+ a la.yer 1ay retain te1porary possession of property for use in t+e client'sdefence .ill 0e rare, and .ill 0e li1ited to circu1stances in .+ic+ t+e la.yer reasona0ly 0elieves t+at a .ron/ful conviction 1ay 0e prevented and t+at t+is use of t+e property .ould 0e si/nificantly di1inis+ed if it .ere disclosed to la. enforce1ent aut+oritiesK (d) T+e per1issi0ility of defence counsel retainin/ te1porary possession for non6destructive testin/ or for use in t+e defence is reco/ni?ed 0y t+e A1erican 7arAssociation (tandards for Cri1inal 2ustice, .+ic+ eApressly allo. counsel to retain property for a reasona0le ti1e .+ere defence counsel Hintends to test, eAa1ine, inspect or use t+e ite1 in any .ay as part of defence counsel's representation of t+e client$IK (e) As for .+et+er la.yers s+ould 0e re=uired in every case to turn over to t+e aut+orities property relevant to a cri1e or offence, t+e Co11ittee o0served t+at suc+ a re=uire1ent 1ay discoura/e clients fro1 seeDin/ le/al advice$ Allo.in/ la.yers to return t+e property to t+e client .+ere t+ey +ar0our no reasona0le fear t+at t+e property .ill 0e altered, destroyed or used to cause p+ysical +ar1 to any person 1aDes it no less liDely t+at t+e evidence .ill see t+e li/+t of day and +as t+e advanta/e of ensurin/ t+at t+e client receives proper le/al adviceK (f) T+e re=uire1ent t+at t+e la.yer pro1ptly seeD aut+ori?ation fro1 a co11ittee of t+e -a. (ociety reco/ni?es, in a .ay t+e Cro.n proposal does not, t+e .ide ran/e of circu1stances in .+ic+ pro0le1s in t+is area 1ay arise$ T+ere is a si/nificant difference, for eAa1ple, 0et.een a situation in .+ic+ a 1urder suspect leaves a 0loody Dnife on a la.yer's desD, on t+e one +and, and a situation in .+ic+ a client provides a docu1ent to a la.yer t+at 1ay eApose t+e client to a prosecution for a provincial offence if it .ere provided to la. enforce1ent aut+orities$ ;0$ T+e Cro.n counsel on t+e Co11ittee also eApressed concern t+at t+e proposed rule and co11entary reco11ended 0y t+e 1aCority could potentially per1it a recurrence of .+at occurred in t+e Murray case$ In t+e vie. of t+e 1aCority, t+is concern is .it+out su0stance$ ;,$ It is i1portant to Deep in 1ind what actually occurre# in the Murray case6 Defence counsel, Mr6 Murray, on the instructions of his client, too4 possession of vi#eotapes that .ere relevant to cri1es of .+ic+ +is client .as accused$ %e did not disclose t+e eAistence of t+e videotapes for approAi1ately ,F 1ont+s$ !n t+e advice of senior counsel, Mr$ Murray t+en sou/+t t+e advice of a co11ittee of -a. (ociety 0enc+ers esta0lis+ed for t+e purpose$ T+e accused's trial .as i11inent$ T+e -a. (ociety co11ittee advised Mr$ Murray to turn over t+e videotapes to t+e trial Cud/e, Associate C+ief 2ustice (no. C+ief 2ustice) -e(a/e$ 2ustice -e(a/e declined to receive t+e videotapes, .+ic+ .ere turned over to t+e counsel for t+e accused's ne. counsel (not to t+e Cro.n)$ T+e accused's ne. counsel in turn disclosed t+e videotapes to t+e Cro.n, and t+ey .ere introduced into evidence at trial$ T+e central pro0le1 in t+e case .as t+at t+e videotapes .ere not disclosed in a ti1ely .ay$ As a result of t+e advice of t+e -a. (ociety, direction of t+e trial Cud/e, and t+e decision of ne. counsel, t+e videotapes .ere eventually disclosed$ ;2$ #nder t+e rule and co11entary reco11ended 0y t+e 1aCority Mr$ Murray .ould not 0e allo.ed to retain possession of t+e videotapes for suc+ an eAtended ti1e$ If +e .ere toclai1 a reasona0le 0elief t+at a .ron/ful conviction .ould 0e prevented if t+e videotapes .ere first disclosed at trial 9 a re=uire1ent of t+e proposed rule 6 +e .ould 0e re=uired under t+e proposed rule pro1ptly to seeD aut+ori?ation fro1 a -a. (ociety co11ittee$ %he Commentary ;3$ T+e co11entary to t+e proposed rule is or/ani?ed into t+e follo.in/ sectionsJ A$ Introduction 7$ Infor1ation "istinct fro1 )ossession C$ Types of )roperty "$ T+e -a.yer's "uties 8it+ espect To )roperty elevant to a Cri1e or !ffence &$ 8+ere "isclosure to Aut+orities is e=uired *$ Advisin/ t+e Client :$ (eeDin/ Advice and Aut+ori?ation &6 +ntro#uction ;;$ T+e Introduction descri0es t+e factors t+e la.yer 1ust taDe into consideration 0efore decidin/ to taDe or Deep possession of suc+ property, includin/ t+e need to fulfill duties of loyalty and confidentiality to t+e client and to o0serve duties to t+e ad1inistration of Custice$ )articular 1ention is 1ade of t+e /eneral o0li/ation not to o0struct t+e course of Custice$ T+e Introduction also 1aDes it clear t+at a la.yer is never required to taDe or Deep possession of property relevant to a cri1e or offence fro1 a client or any ot+er person$

'6 +nformation Distinct from Possession ;5$ T+e co11entary distin/uis+es 0et.een t+e la.yer's possession of property and Dno.led/e of it$ T+e co11entary focusses on circu1stances in .+ic+ t+e la.yer is asDed to taDe possession, and t+e o0li/ations flo.in/ fro1 t+e la.yer's decisions$ C6 %ypes of Property ;<$ T+is section confir1s t+at t+e rule applies to all property, includin/ ori/inal docu1ents and docu1ents t+at are electronically stored or for1atted$ D6 %he Lawyers Duties 9ith Respect %o Property Relevant to a Crime or Offence (6 9here Disclosure to &uthorities is Re5uire# ;F$ (ection " co1ple1ents t+e portion of t+e rule t+at discusses +o. la.yers s+ould deal .it+ property relevant to a cri1e or offence$ (ection & is devoted to t+e circu1stances in .+ic+ la.yers +ave duties to disclose suc+ property to la. enforce1ent aut+orities$ ;G$ Accordin/ to t+e rule, la.yers are not to accept or retain suc+ property eAcept in very li1ited circu1stances and even t+en only te1porarily$ T+e co11entary, in discussin/ circu1stances in .+ic+ t+e la.yer +as a duty to disclose t+e property to la. enforce1ent aut+orities, advises la.yers to retain independent counsel to 1aDe t+e disclosure anony1ously to protect t+e confidentiality of infor1ation a0out t+e source of t+e evidence$ ;B$ T+e co11entary ela0orates on 1atters relatin/ to t+e purposes for .+ic+ suc+ property 1ay 0e retained te1porarily and t+e la.yer's o0li/ations in +andlin/ t+e property, includin/ t+e point at .+ic+ t+e la.yer /ives up possession$ )6 &#visin0 the Client B6 See4in0 &#vice an# &uthoriCation 50$ T+ese t.o sections relate to t+e advice t+at a la.yer s+ould provide to a client .+en asDed to taDe or Deep property relevant to a cri1e or offence$ T+e Co11entary advises la.yers to seeD t+e advice of eAperienced counsel or t+e -a. (ociety .it+ respect to t+e +andlin/ of t+e property or any ot+er issues connected .it+ it, 0ut reiterates t+at a co11ittee of t+e -a. (ociety esta0lis+ed for t+e purposes descri0ed in t+e rule must $e approache# 0y t+e la.yer for aut+ori?ation 0efore t+e la.yer taDes or Deeps property relevant to a cri1e or offence for testin/ or for use at trial$ 5,$ T+e Co11entary e1p+asi?es t+at la.yers s+ould Deep a .ritten record of t+e advice$ S,MM&R: 52$ T+e draftin/ of rules of professional conduct 0y its nature is an intricate eAercise t+at calls for a delicate 0alancin/ of duties t+at so1eti1es conflict$ T+e Co11ittee's 1andate not only illustrated t+e difficulty of t+at tasD, 0ut also presented uni=ue c+allen/es as a result of t+e conteAt in .+ic+ t+e need for /uidance in t+is pro0le1atic area arose$ T+e eAtraordinary circu1stances .ere set a/ainst t+e 0acD/round of si/nificant pu0lic interest in t+e events leadin/ up to t+e for1ation of t+e Co11ittee and decisions in 0ot+ t+e courts and at t+e (ociety .+ic+ called out for clear /uidance$ T+e t+e1es appearin/ in t+e rule and co11entary .ere, as noted a0ove, t+e su0Cect of si/nificant de0ate a1on/ Co11ittee 1e10ers$ T+is .as not uneApected, /iven t+at t+e issues involved t+e need to ensure t+e inte/rity of t+e ad1inistration of Custice, t+e funda1ental nature of t+e solicitor and client relations+ip and t+e ri/+t of all persons to independent counsel$ 53$ T+e Co11ittee as a .+ole reco/ni?es t+e i1possi0ility of anticipatin/ all situations in .+ic+ t+e rule and co11entary 1ay apply in future$ T+e Co11ittee eApects t+at t+e efficacy of t+e rule .ill 0e tested only .+en issues fallin/ .it+in its a10it are dealt .it+ on a case 0y case 0asis$ 5;$ T+e pri1ary o0Cective of t+e proposed rule and co11entary is to provide su0stantive /uidance to la.yers in Deepin/ .it+ t+e (ociety's role to /overn t+e profession in t+e pu0lic interest$ T+e Co11ittee ur/es Convocation to adopt t+e proposals as a1end1ents to t+e Societys Rules of Professional Conduct6 D(C+S+O* )OR CO*;OC&%+O* 55$ Convocation is as4e# to approve the propose# rule an# commentary, an# amen# the Law Societys Rules of Professional Conduct to a## the rule an# commentary appearin0 at &ppen#i/ C as rule 76 1.1 < throu0h .1D< an# relate# commentary6 &PP(*D+E & S,'M+SS+O* O) %-( O*%&R+O CRO9* &%%OR*(:S &SSOC+&%+O*CROW !R"#$ %% $O & LOP"RCO' P"(L L) !S"& March *' *++, %he Lawyers Duties 9ith Respect to Physical (vi#ence of Crime Propose# Rule ,$ A la.yer s+all not counsel or participate inJ (a) t+e o0tainin/ of evidence or infor1ation 0y ille/al 1eansK (0) t+e falsification of evidenceK (c) t+e destruction of p+ysical evidence relevant to an offence, t+e alteration of suc+ evidence so as to affect its evidentiary value, or t+e re1oval of suc+ evidence fro1 a cri1e sceneK (d) t+e conceal1ent of p+ysical evidence relevant to an offenceK (e) t+e possession or conceal1ent of property o0tained or derived directly or indirectly fro1 t+e co11ission of an offence$ 2$ A la.yer s+allJ (a) advise t+e client t+at it is t+e la.yer's duty to turn over to t+e aut+orities any property .it+in t+e a10it of ule , t+at co1es into t+e la.yer's possessionK (0) i11ediately turn over to t+e aut+orities any property .it+in t+e a10it of ule , t+at co1es into t+e la.yer's possession$ 20 *O%(S T+is rule is not intended to affect co11unications or docu1ents .+ic+ ot+er.ise co1e .it+in t+e a10it of solicitor6client privile/e$ T+is rule is intended to cover all for1s of property, includin/ docu1ents, .+ic+ 1ay +ave evidentiary value in a cri1inal or quasi6cri1inal investi/ation or proceedin/, .+et+er co11enced or not$ )ara/rap+ , (c) is not intended to interfere .it+ t+e testin/ of evidence or t+e release of court eA+i0its as aut+ori?ed 0y t+e Criminal Code or ot+er federal or provincial statutes$ 8+en turnin/ over evidence co1in/ .it+in t+is rule to t+e aut+orities, t+e la.yer 1ust nevert+eless taDe appropriate steps to protect t+e client's confidences and preserve solicitorclient privile/e, .+ic+ 1ay involve t+e la.yer actin/ t+rou/+ anot+er la.yer$

<

9hy is a new rule $ein0 formulate#F T+ere is a need to for1ulate a crystal clear rule in response to concerns eApressed 0y Mr$ 2ustice Bravely in R. v. Murray that the present rules of professional con#uct are not clear, an# in response to pu$lic concerns arisin0 from the Murray case6 9hat are the purposes of new ruleF To draft a H0lacD letterI rule t+at can 0e enforced t+rou/+ discipline if 0reac+ed$ To /ive /uidance to la.yers .+o need to address t+e dile11a of potentially conflictin/ duties, i.e. duty to client vs$ duty to ad1inistration of Custice$ -ow $est to achieve this 0oalF )ormulate a rule as clear an# simple as possi$le6 %his a##resses the complaint that the Law Society 0ives no real 0ui#ance in situations of ethical conflicts6 %his propose# formulation has the 0reat a#vanta0e of $ein0 clear an# simple, since it #oes not leave #iscretion in va0uely #efine# circumstances6 +t ma4es it clear that lawyers shoul# not ta4e possession of property that has potential evi#entiary value6 +f suc+ evidence nevert+eless co1es into t+e la.yer's possession it 1ust 0e turned over to aut+orities in a 1anner t+at 0est protects t+e client's interests, .it+out interferin/ .it+ t+e due ad1inistration of Custice$ &#vanta0es of the propose# rule" T+e proposed rule is lar/ely 0ased upon C+apter ,0, ule 20, of t+e Al0erta Code of )rofessional Conduct, and t+e Co11entaries t+ereunder$ T+ere is no indication t+at t+e Al0erta rule +as unduly interfered .it+ t+e relations+ip 0et.een la.yers and t+eir clients$ It is su01itted t+at in t+e a0sence of co1pellin/ reasons Custifyin/ a different position, t+ere is no /ood reason for !ntario to for1ulate a rule t+at Custifies not turnin/ evidence over to t+e aut+orities .+en t+e Al0erta rule so re=uires$ A rule .+ic+ is 0ased upon an A1erican 1odel is not one .+ic+ is liDely to instill pu0lic confidence in t+e ad1inistration of Custice, /iven t+e very different le/al and social environ1ents in .+ic+ our t.o syste1s operate$ &asy to understand and co1ply .it+$ No et+ical dile11a, as rule is 1andatory rat+er t+an discretionary$ Client is fully a.are of i1plications of turnin/ ite1s over to t+e la.yer$ Ad1inistration of Custice is en+anced 0y virtue of t+e fact t+at evidence of cri1e used forinvesti/ative or prosecutorial decision61aDin/ is not secreted 0y la.yers or is not ot+er.ise placed out of t+e reac+ of t+e aut+orities 0y la.yers$ (op+isticated cri1inals could never use la.yers as a repository of Hcontra0andI$ Counsel can never $e accuse# of o$structin0 Austice or contravenin0 s6>?7 of the Co#e6 Counsel does not risD 0eco1in/ a potential .itness if continuity of evidence 0eco1es an issue$ Investi/ative and prosecutorial decisions .ill 0e 1ade .it+ 1ore co1pre+ensive infor1ation, resultin/ in lesser liDeli+ood of 1iscarria/es of Custice and en+anced pu0lic confidence in t+e due ad1inistration of Custice$ If rule .ere to per1it .it++oldin/ of evidence until after trial co11ences, trials could 0e delayed or 1istrials declared to per1it Cro.n testin/ or recall of .itnesses to address ne. evidence or to conduct furt+er investi/ation$ "oes not offend duty of loyalty and confidentiality to client$ Pro$lems with the Previously )ormulate# Draft Rule" )reviously drafted rule 1i/+t +ave effect of not preventin/ o0struction of Custice$ T+e previous draft /ives inade=uate consideration to t+e effect t+at t+e .it++oldin/ of evidence, even temporarily, 1i/+t +ave on t+e course of Custice$ As 2ustice :ravely indicated at paras6 1 DG1 = of the Murray #ecision, the failure to #isclose the tapes in that case not only ten#e# to o$struct the police in their #uty to investi0ate the crimes, $ut also impacte# throu0hout on the series of prosecutorial #ecisions $ein0 ma#e as the case was procee#in0 to trial6 +n this connection, 2ustice :ravely co11ented as follo.sJ On the face of the evidence Murrays action in secreting the critical tapes had the tendency to obstruct the course of justice at several stages of the proceedings. he tapes !ere put beyond the reach of the police !ho had unsuccessfully attempted to locate them. "ecreting them had the tendency to obstruct the police in their duty to investigate the crimes of #ernardo and $omol%a. he impact of the absence of the tapes flo!ed through into the ability of the Cro!n to conduct its case throughout. &uite apart from, and in addition to, the possible impact of the tapes on the outcome of the $omol%a proceedings, as #lac%loc% '. pointed out in his reasons for committal at the Preliminary (nquiry, )* !hole series of prosecutorial decisions are being made as a case proceeds along to trial). One of those prosecutorial decisions occurred !hen, !ithout %no!ledge of the tapes, Cro!n counsel approached Murray !ith a resolution offer !hich Murray recommended to his client. +,mphasis added.2ustice 7lacDlocD's co11ents at pa/e ,F of t+e +is easons for 2ud/1ent on t+e preli1inary in=uiry are also 1ost instructiveJ ( agree that the notion that incriminating physical evidence may be held to the point of trial is troubling for reasons other than those set out in .airban%. * !hole series of prosecutorial decisions are being made as a case proceeds along to trial that the strength of the case relates to. /ecisions are made about judicial interim release, the form of the indictment upon !hich the Cro!n and the Court !ill proceed is determined, !hether or not to enter into plea negotiations, !hat position to ta%e in those negotiations. (f counsel are entitled to hold incriminating physical evidence to the point of trial, on the basis that to do so furthers in any measure a defence tactic counsel could presumably permit all these %ey decisions to be made %no!ing that it had ta%en out of any potential 0one of discovery, significant incriminating physical evidence !hich !ould impact on those decisions. T+e previous draft rule does not ac+ieve o0Cective of 0ein/ a clear rule t+at can 0e enforced t+rou/+ discipline proceedin/s if 0reac+ed$ T+at proposal continues to put counsel at risD of cri1inal prosecution 0ecause t+e Cud/1ent call on t+e part of counsel 1i/+t result in an assess1ent t+at counsel's action +ad in fact tended to o0struct, pervert or defeat t+e course of Custice, contrary to section ,3B of t+e Criminal Code$ If evidence is i11ediately +anded over t+e aut+orities, eAa1ination or testin/ of evidence .ill nor1ally 0e perfor1ed 0y t+e Cro.n and all results of testin/ .ill 0e disclosed to t+e defenceK if t+e Cro.n declines to conduct testin/ or ot+er.ise does not a/ree to reasona0le defence testin/, defence +as a0ility to re5uest the Court to or#er pro#uction of the evi#ence an#, pursuant to s6 D ? of the Criminal Code' the #efence may see4 a court or#er for the release of t+e evidence for scientific testin/$

8it+ respect to t+e su//estion t+at it .ould 0e appropriate to .it++old disclosure of evidence in order to test t+e credi0ility of .itnesses at trial 0y surprisin/ t+e1 .it+ evidence relatin/ to t+e cri1e, .e offer t+e follo.in/ o0servationsJ If evidence is .+olly inculpatory, t+en t+e only purpose of Deepin/ it .ould 0e to prevent t+e Cro.n fro1 usin/ it$ T+is is not a valid reason for defence to 0e a0le to Deep evidence for any period of ti1e$ If evidence is eAculpatory, t+e ad1inistration of Custice is not i1paired 0y turnin/ it over to t+e Cro.n a+ead of ti1e$ If evidence 1i/+t 0e 0ot+ inculpatory and eAculpatory and t+is is t+e 0asis for .it++oldin/ evidence until t+e close of t+e Cro.n's case, t+e issue arises as to .+at de/ree of eAculpatory use is re=uired in order to Custify t+e retention of t+e evidenceK and .+o 1aDes t+e decision$ It is su01itted t+at a 0elief t+at t+ere is so1e perip+eral or collateral use t+at can 0e 1ade of t+e evidence to test a .itness's credi0ility or a0ility to perceive is insufficient to Custify conduct .+ic+ ot+er.ise +as t+e effect of o$structin0 Austice$ If t+is .ere not so, t+en Mr$ Murray's Custification for suppressin/ t+e tapes .ould 0e appropriate in t+e future$ Clearly, t+is is not .+at 2ustice :ravely found$ 8it+ respect to taDin/ te1porary possession of evidence to avoid future +ar1K to prevent t+e destruction of t+e evidenceK or to 1aDe arran/e1ents to transfer t+e evidence t+e aut+orities, o0viously t+ese purposes do not o0struct Custice and could 0e included in a proposed rule if it is felt t+at t+ese situations are not ade=uately covered$ &PP(*D+E ' S,'M+SS+O* O) %-( &%%OR*(: B(*(R&L O) O*%&R+O Attorney General The Hon. David S. Young Minister Responsible for Native Affairs Pro ureur gnral !"hon. David S. Young #inistre delegue au$ Affaires auto htones Ministry of the Attorney General Ministre du Procureur gnral %O Secretary, Special Committee on Physical (vi#ence )olicy (ecretariat -a. (ociety of #pper Canada !s/oode %all ,30 Eueen (treet 8est Toronto, !ntario M5% 2N< "ear (irMMada1eJ I .ould liDe to t+anD you for t+e opportunity to co11ent on proposed rule ;$0,(,0) relatin/ to la.yers' duties .it+ respect to p+ysical evidence of cri1e$ I +ave /rave concerns a0out t+e rule proposed 0y t+e 1aCority of t+e (pecial Co11ittee .+ic+ I 0elieve is inconsistent .it+ t+e cri1inal la. relatin/ to o0struction of Custice, is incompati$le with the #ue an# proper a#ministration of Austice, an# will only serve to un#ermine the pu$lics confi#ence in the le0al profession$ T+e proposed rule purports to per1it la.yers to participate in t+e conceal1ent of evidence for len/t+y periods of ti1e, in so1e instances forever$ T+ere are t+ree 1aCor aspects of t+e proposed rule .+ic+ cause /reatest concern$ *irst, t+e proposed rule .ould allo. a la.yer to secrete evidence fro1 t+e appropriate aut+orities until after t+e trial +ad co11enced and t+e Cro.n +ad closed its case, solely for t+e purpose of per1ittin/ t+e defence to 1aAi1i?e t+e tactical effectiveness of t+e evidence at trial$ T+is use of evidence is not consistent .it+ 2ustice :ravely's decision in R. v. -en Murray .2 <, 7= O6R6 .>#< ?776 1ustice Bravely stated at p$ 5F0J Once he ha# #iscovere# the overwhelmin0 si0nificance of the critical tapes, Murray, in my opinion, was left with $ut three le0ally Austifia$le optionsJ a$ I11ediately turn over t+e tapes to t+e prosecution, eit+er directly or anony1ouslyK 0$ "eposit t+e1 .it+ t+e trial Cud/eK or, c$ "isclose t+eir eAistence to t+e prosecution and prepare to do 0attle to retain t+e1 + am satisfie# that Murrays concealment of the critical tapes was an act thatha# a ten#ency to pervert or o$struct the course of Austice6 N&1p+asis added$O 2ustice :ravely's Cud/e1ent on t+is point s+ould co1e as no surprise, since 0y +oldin/ on to t+e evidence until trial a la.yer is effectively concealin/ t+at evidence for t+at period of ti1e$ 9hat the propose# rule fails to ta4e into account is that even temporary concealment of evi#ence of crime can have the effect of o$structin0 the course of Austice6 T+at a rule of professional conduct of t+e -a. (ociety of #pper Canada .ould purport to sanction suc+ conduct is not+in/ s+ort of scandalous$ *or eAa1ple, t+e proposed rule .ould allo. a la.yer to conceal p+ysical evidence fro1 t+e aut+orities even t+ou/+ t+e la.yer Dno.s t+at t+e Cro.n is conductin/ plea discussions .it+ a co6accused and t+at t+e p+ysical evidence of cri1e .ould affect t+e outco1e of t+ose discussions$ In s+ort, it 1i/+t allo. a repeat of t+e #emardo situation, in .+ic+ t+e Cro.n .as o0li/ed to conduct plea discussions .it+out Dno.led/e of t+e eAistence of t+e 1ost i1portant p+ysical evidence i1plicatin/ t+e accused$ As 2ustice :ravely indicated at pa/es 5<< and 5<F of +is Cud/1ent, t+e failure to disclose t+e tapes in t+at case not only tended to o0struct +e police in t+eir duty to investi/ate t+e cri1es, 0ut also i1pacted t+rou/+out on t+e series of prosecutorial decisions 0ein/ 1ade as t+e case .as proceedin/ to trial$ In t+is connection, 2ustice :ravely co11ented as follo.sJ !n t+e face of t+e evidence Murray's action in secretin/ t+e critical tapes +ad t+etendency to o0struct t+e course of Custice at several sta/es of t+e proceedin/s$ T+e tapes .ere put 0eyond t+e reac+ of t+e police .+o +ad unsuccessfully atte1pted to locate t+e1$ (ecretin/ t+e1 +ad t+e tendency to o0struct t+e police in t+eir duty to investi/ate t+e cri1es of 7ernardo and %o1olDa$ T+e i1pact of t+e a0sence of t+e tapes flo.ed t+rou/+ into t+e a0ility of t+e Cro.n toconduct its case t+rou/+out$ Euite apart fro1, and in addition to, t+e possi0le i1pact of t+e tapes on t+e outco1e of t+e %o1olDa proceedin/s, as 7lacDlocD 2$ pointed out in +is reasons for co11ittal at t+e )reli1inary In=uiry, HA .+ole series of prosecutorial decisions are 0ein/ 1ade as a case proceeds alon/ to trial$ One of those prosecutorial #ecisions occurre# when, without 4nowle#0e of the tapes, Crown counsel approache# Murray with a resolution offer which Murray recommen#e# to hisclient6 N&1p+asis added$O 1ustice 'lac4loc4s comments at pa0e 1H of his Reasons for 1u#0ment on the preliminary in5uiry in R. v. Murray are also apposite" I a.ree that the notion that incriminatin. physical evidence may 0e +eld to t+e point of trial is trou0lin/ for reasons ot+er t+an t+ose set out in )air$an46 A .+ole series of prosecutorial #ecisions are $ein0 ma#e as a case procee#s alon0 to trial that the stren0th of t+e case relates to$ "ecisions are 1ade a0out Cudicial interi1 release, t+e for1 of t+e indict1ent upon .+ic+ t+e Cro.n and t+e Court .ill proceed is deter1ined, .+et+er or not to enter into plea ne0otiations, .+at position to taDe in t+ose ne/otiations$ +f counsel are entitle# to hol# incriminatin0 physical evi#ence to the point of trial, on the $asis that

to #o so furthers in any measure a #efence tactic counsel coul# presuma$ly permit all these 4ey #ecisions to $e ma#e 4nowin0 that it ha# ta4en out of any potential Cone of #iscovery, si0nificant incriminatin0 physical evi#ence which woul# impact on those #ecisions6 :iven t+e clear pronounce1ents 0y 1ustice Bravely an# 1ustice 'lac4loc4 on this point an# the inherent lo0ic of their position, the propose# rule is most pro$lematic, as it purports to permit a lawyer to #o that which the courts have sai# cannot $e #one6 %he implementation of t+is rule per1ittin/ defence counsel to +old on to incri1inatin/ evidence, for tactical reasons, until after t+e Cro.n's case is closed .ould not instill pu0lic confidence in t+e ad1inistration of Custice$ %o the contrary, + am force# to o$serve that such a rule woul# $rin0 the a#ministration of Austice into#isrepute6 My secon# maAor concern is t+at t+e proposed rule .ould purport to allo. a la.yer to retain p+ysical evidence of cri1e in order to conduct scientific testin/$ T+e difficulty .it+ t+is is t+at t+e proposed rule, once a/ain, fails to consider t+e adverse effects t+at even te1porary conceal1ent of t+e p+ysical evidence of cri1e could +ave on t+e ad1inistration of Custice$ T+e proposed rule also fails to reco/ni?e t+at t+e defence is not preCudiced 0y i11ediately +andin/ over t+e evidence to t+e aut+orities$ Any eAa1ination or testin/ of evidence t+at t+e Cro.n perfor1s .ill 0e disclosed to t+e defence$ If t+e Cro.n declines to conduct testin/, or ot+er.ise does not a/ree to reasona0le defence testin/, t+e defence +as t+e a0ility to re=uest t+e Court to or#er pro#uction of the evi#ence an#, pursuant to s6 D ? of the Criminal Code, the #efence may seeD a court order for t+e release of the evi#ence for scientific testin06 My thir# maAor concern with the propose# rule is that it woul# allow a lawyer who too4 possession of evi#ence of cri1e to return t+e evidence to t+e ori/inal source$ T+is .ould, in effect, allo. t+e la.yer to participate in the permanent concealment of evi#ence of a criminal offence6 )or e/ample, it appears that if the item was ori0inally hi##en or $urie# in some remote location, t+en t+e proposed rule .ould allo. t+e la.yer to re0ury t+e evidence$ T+e spectre of an officer of t+e court participatin/ in t+e conceal1ent of evidence in t+is 1anner .ould certainly s+ocD t+e sensi0ilities of t+e co11unity and .ould only serve to lo.er pu0lic confidence in t+e le/al profession and in the #ue a#ministration of Austice6 T+e proposed rule is surprisin/ in t+at it is contrary to past opinions rendered 0y t+e -a. (ociety's ad hoc Hs1oDin/ /unI co11ittee$ !ne suc+ opinion involved t+e fa1ous H0loody s+irtI case$ In t+at case a person .as .anted for 1urder and entered a la.yer's office .it+ 0lood on +is s+irt$ T+e la.yer instructed t+e client to re1ove t+e s+irt, .+ic+ +e did, and t+en placed t+e s+irt in t+e client's file$ T+e la.yer started to .orry a0out +is actions, retained anot+er counsel .+o approac+ed t+e )rofessional Conduct Co11ittee$ T+e advice received fro1 t+e Co11ittee .asJ 3ou s+ould not +ave taDen t+e s+irt$ It is a piece of p+ysical evidence$ Not only t+at, .+at you sa. .it+ your eyes as opposed to .+at you +eard .it+ your ears, is not privile/ed so t+at you 1ay 0e a .itness no. in t+is case$ !ur advice to you is t+at you 1ust .it+dra. fro1 t+e case and you must turn the shirt over forthwith to the Crown &ttorney6 T+e proposed rule is also contrary to t+e rule pro1ul/ated 0y t+e -a. (ociety of Al0erta$ I a1 una.are of any su//estion t+at Al0erta's rule +as +a1pered t+e role of defence counsel$ It .ould appear t+at t+e proposed rule is 0ased upon an A1erican 1odel t+at is not liDely to instill pu0lic confidence in t+e ad1inistration of Custice, /iven t+e very different le/al and social environ1ents in .+ic+ our t.o syste1s of la. operate$ T+e proposed rule .ould do a /reat disservice to t+e le/al profession$ T+e Courts +ave routinely +eld t+at it is a cri1inal offence for anyone to conceal evi#ence of crime" R. v. La/oie .1@=@<, 7H C6C6C6 .>#< >= .Iue6 C6 &6<J R. v. Lavin .1@@2<, HD C6C6C, .>#< 2H@ .Iue6 C6&6< an# R. v. "0rofi .1@@H<, 11> C6C6C6 .>#< 2 1 .Ont6 C6&6<6 +n attemptin0 to formulate a rule re0ar#in0 the retention of physical evi#ence of crime, the Law Society must ensure that the rule it enacts is consistent with the law6 Any rule t+at is inconsistent .it+ t+e cri1inal la. is of no force or effect and ultra vires t+e -a. (ociety, since, as you Dno., t+e -a. (ociety is a provincial 0ody .+ic+ cannot a1end federal cri1inal la.$ A la.yer .+o follo.s t+e proposed rule and retains p+ysical evidence of cri1e until trial, or .+o conducts scientific testin/ .it+out t+e Dno.led/e of t+e aut+orities, or .+o returns t+e p+ysical evidence of cri1e to its source, 1ay still run t+e risD of 0ein/ c+ar/ed .it+ a cri1inal offence$ I support t+e rule proposed 0y t+e Cro.n 1e10ers of t+e (pecial Co11ittee .+ic+ states t+at p+ysical evidence of cri1e t+at co1es into a la.yer's possession 1ust i11ediately 0e turned over to t+e aut+orities$ T+is proposed rule +as 1any advanta/esJ it is consistent .it+ t+e cri1inal la.K it is easy to un#erstan# an# comply withJ it poses no ethical #ilemma to the lawyer, as the rule is man#atory rather than #iscretionaryJ investi0ative an# prosecutorial #ecisions will $e ma#e with more comprehensive information, resultin0 in a re#uce# possi$ility of a miscarria0e of AusticeJ an# ultimately, an# most importantly, it serves to instill pu$lic confi#ence in the le0al profession an# in the a#ministration of Austice6 7y .ay of su11ary, I a1 a0solutely opposed to t+e rule proposed 0y t+e 1aCority of t+e (pecial Co11ittee$ In 1y role as t+e c+ief la. officer of t+e Cro.n, I a1 very concerned t+at t+is proposed rule /ives no .ei/+t to t+e le/iti1ate de1ands of t+e ad1inistration of Custice t+at la.yers not 0eco1e secret repositories of evidence of cri1es$ All ri/+t t+inDin/ 1e10ers of t+e pu0lic .ill 0e appalled to discover t+at t+is proposed rule totally i/nores t+e si/nificant da1a/e t+at can 0e caused to t+e ad1inistration of Custice 0y any delay in +andin/ over p+ysical evidence of cri1e to t+e aut+orities$ In 1any cases, defence counsel .ill +ave no infor1ation concernin/ .+at steps an investi/ation or a prosecution may $e ta4in0 an# is in no position to 0au0e what #ama0e #elaye# #isclosure or nonG#isclosure mi0ht have on the con#uct of an investi0ation or prosecution$ It is si1ply unaccepta0le t+at t+e Law Society of ,pper Cana#a woul# purport to permit lawyers to arro0ate to themselves the #ecision as to when, or even whether, it is in the $est interests of the a#ministration of Austice to #isclose to the appropriate authorities physical evi#ence of crime which is in the lawyers possession6 %here can $e no dou0t that it is in the pu$lic interest that investi0ative an# prosecutorial #ecisions are ma#e with all availa$le evi#ence an# information6 T+at t+e -a. (ociety 1i/+t pro1ul/ate a rule t+at per1its la.yers to secrete evidence t+at .ould +ave an adverse i1pact on t+ose decisions and .+ic+ 1i/+t result in 1iscarria/es of Austice is intolera$le an# woul# only serve to $rin0 the a#ministration of Austice into #isrepute6 T+anD you a/ain for t+is opportunity to co11ent on t+e proposed rule$ I sincerely +ope t+at t+e (pecial Co11ittee and Convocation .ill reconsider t+e possi0le i1ple1entation of t+e rule proposed 0y t+e 1aCority of t+e (pecial Co11ittee and .ill find favour .it+ t+e rule proposed 0y t+e Cro.n 1e10ers of t+e co11ittee$ 3ours truly,"avid 3oun/, Attorney :eneral and Minister esponsi0le for Native Affairs c$c$ o0ert Ar1stron/, E$C$Treasurer, -a. (ociety of #pper Canada &PP(*D+E C

PROPOS(D R,L( O) PRO)(SS+O*&L CO*D,C% 76 1.1 < 8 .1D< &*D COMM(*%&R: Rule 7 G Relationship to the &#ministration of 1ustice 76 1 %-( L&9:(R &S &D;OC&%( Property Relevant to a Crime or Offence ;$0, (,0) A la.yer s+all not taDe or Deep possession of property relevant to a cri1e or offence, eAcept in accordance .it+ t+is rule$ (,,) A la.yer 1ay taDe or Deep te1porary possession of property relevant to a cri1e or offence only .+ereJ (a) it is necessary to do so to prevent t+e alteration, loss or destruction of t+e evidence, (0) it is necessary to do so to prevent p+ysical +ar1 to any person, (c) t+e client or t+e person possessin/ t+e property instructs t+e la.yer to pro1ptly arran/e for t+e property to 0e disclosed or delivered to t+e Cro.n or la. enforce1ent aut+orities, (d) t+e la.yer reasona0ly 0elieves it is in t+e interests of Custice t+at t+e property 0e eAa1ined or tested 0efore it is disclosed or delivered to t+e Cro.n or la. enforce1ent aut+orities, and t+e property 1ay 0e eAa1ined or tested .it+out alterin/ or destroyin/ its essential c+aracteristics, or (e) t+e la.yer reasona0ly 0elieves t+at a .ron/ful conviction 1ay $e prevente# if the property is first #isclose# at trial, and t+is use of t+e property .ould 0e si/nificantly di1inis+ed if it .ere disclosed to t+e Cro.n or la. enforce1ent aut+orities 0efore t+e trial$ (,2) A la.yer 1ay taDe or Deep te1porary possession under su0rule (,,) (d) or (e) only if the lawyer has $een authoriCe# to #o so $y a committee of theLaw Society esta$lishe# $y the %reasurer to #eci#e whether the lawyer may ta4e or 4eep temporary possession6 %he lawyer must see4 suchauthoriCation promptly $ (,3) A la.yer .+o taDes or Deeps possession of property relevant to a cri1e or offence s+all not (a) counsel any alteration, conceal1ent, loss or destruction of t+e property, (0) alter, conceal, lose, or destroy t+e property, or (c) deal .it+ t+e property in a 1anner t+at t+ere are reasona0le/rounds to 0elieve .ould .i< o$struct Austice, or .ii< ris4 physical harm to any person6 (,;) A la.yer .+o taDes or Deeps property relevant to a cri1e or offence s+all /ive up possession of t+e evidence as soon as practical and only in accordance .it+ su0rules (,,)(d) or (e), (,5) or (,<)$ (,5) A la.yer in possession of property relevant to a cri1e or offence 1ay return t+e evidence to its source only if t+e la.yer is satisfied on reasona0le /rounds t+at t+e evidence .ill not 0e (a) altered, concealed, lost or destroyed or (0) used to cause p+ysical +ar1 to any person$ .,<) (u0Cect to su0rules (,0) 9 (,5), a la.yer in possession of property relevant to a cri1e or offence s+all disclose or deliver it to t+e Cro.n or la. enforce1ent aut+orities as soon as practica0le in all t+e circu1stances$ COMM(*%&R: &6 +ntro#uction A la.yer .+o taDes fro1 a client or ot+er person property relevant to a cri1e or offence confronts difficult et+ical issues and c+oices 9 and co1petin/ professional duties$ T+is co11entary is intended to assist la.yers .+o, in 1aDin/ decisions in t+e 0est interests of t+eir clients, 1ust also address t+eir duties to t+e ad1inistration of Custice$ A la.yer o.es duties of loyalty and confidentiality to +is or +er client and 1ust act in t+eclient's 0est interests 0y providin/ co1petent and dedicated representation$ T+ese duties, .+ic+are funda1ental to t+e ad1inistration of Custice, a1on/ ot+er t+in/s, encoura/e t+e client to 0e co1pletely candid .it+ t+e la.yer, .+o t+en can provide t+e 0est possi0le le/al advice and representation, .+ic+ is particularly i1portant in t+e cri1inal la. conteAt .+ere t+e reputation and li0erty of t+e client 1ay 0e at risD$ T+e duties of loyalty and confidentiality 1ust 0e fulfilled in a .ay t+at reflects credit on t+e le/al profession, and inspires t+e confidence, respect and trust of clients and t+e pu0lic$ T+e la.yer also o.es duties to t+e ad1inistration of Custice, .+ic+ re=uire, at a 1ini1u1, t+at t+e la.yer not violate t+e la., i1properly i1pede a police investi/ation, or ot+er.ise o0struct t+e course of Custice$ T+ese duties 1ust 0e o0served in t+e conteAt of our adversarial syste1 of Custice, in .+ic+ t+e state 0ears t+e 0urden of proof and an accused's la.yer is not allo.ed,unless t+e client per1its, to assist in t+e proof of t+e cri1e or offence$ It is in t+is conteAt t+at a la.yer's responsi0ilities under su0rules ;$0, (,0) 9 (,<) s+ould 0e considered$ #nder t+ese rules, a la.yer is never re=uired to taDe or Deep possession of property relevant to a cri1e or offence and /enerally s+ould not taDe or Deep suc+ property$ %o.ever, incertain li1ited circu1stances, is it per1issi0le for a la.yer to taDe or Deep suc+ property te1porarily$ T+ese rules also address +o. a la.yer s+ould /ive up possession of propertyrelevant to a cri1e or offence t+at +e or s+e te1porarily possesses$ '6 +nformation Distinct from Possession T+is rule applies .+ere t+e la.yer taDes or Deeps property relevant to a cri1e or offence$ It does not apply .+ere t+e la.yer is 1erely infor1ed of property in t+e possession or control of t+e client or ot+er person$ In t+ose circu1stances, t+e la.yer .ill ordinarily +ave a duty to Deep confidential t+e infor1ation disclosed 0y or on 0e+alf of t+e client (see rule 2$03$) &ven .+ere t+e la.yer is asDed 0y or on 0e+alf of t+e client to taDe or Deep property relevant to a cri1e or offence, suc+ infor1ation co11unicated 0y or on 0e+alf of t+e client (as contrasted .it+ t+e property itself) .ill ordinarily 0e confidential$ T+e duty of confidentiality .ill also ordinarily apply to infor1ation a0out property co11unicated orally or in .ritin/ 0y or on 0e+alf of t+e client (suc+ as t+e location of t+e property) as .ell as infor1ation co11unicated 0y t+e client's actions (suc+ as t+e fact t+at t+e client +as possession or control of property)$ T+e la.yer's actions in vie.in/ t+e property, .it+out 1ore, .ill ordinarily 0e confidential, as .ill any advice t+e la.yer provides to t+e client .it+ respect to t+e property, as lon/ as t+e la.yer does not counsel or participate in any alteration, conceal1ent, loss or destruction of it$ 8+ere t+e la.yer refuses to taDe possession of t+e property, t+e la.yer s+ould 0e careful not to counsel or participate in t+e alteration, conceal1ent, loss, or destruction of t+e property$ T+e lawyer may provi#e le0al a#vice concernin0 o$struction of Austice an# a$out how the han#lin0 of +ncriminatin0 evi#ence may show consciousness of 0uilt to allow the client to ma4e an informe# #ecision on what is in the clients $est interests6 Su$Aect to the 5ualifications of this rule .for e/ample, the 5ualification a$out preventin0 physical harm to others< what to #o with the property is the clients #ecision, as the client will have to face the conse5uences of the #ecision6

,0

+f the client leaves with the property, the lawyers o$servations of the property an# the clients possession of it will usually $e confi#ential un#er rule 26 >6 *evertheless, the lawyers 4nowle#0e may affect his or her a$ility to act as #efense counsel6 )or e/ample, if the lawyer learns that the client inten#s to testify that he or she never ha# possession of the property that the la.yer o0served in t+e client's possession, t+e la.yer could not lead t+e client's evidence and 32 woul# have a #uty to with#raw from the representation in accor#ance with rule 26 @ .H<.$< if the client insists on 0ivin0 this testimony6 C6 %ypes of Property T+is rule applies to all types of property relevant to a cri1e or offence includin/ ori/inal docu1ents and docu1ents t+at are electronically stored or for1atted$ D6 %he Lawyers Duties 9ith Respect to Property Relevant to a Crime or Offence 8+ere un#er rule 761 .11<.#<, the lawyer ta4es or 4eeps the property to e/amine or test it, the e/amination or testin0 must $e 0enuinely for the purpose of the clients representation an# not #evise# to ai# in a ruse or to avoi# #isclosure of the property to the Crown or law enforcement authorities6 T+e la.yer s+ould 0e satisfied that the person performin. any test is reputa1le' and the lawyer should 0eep a record of the test and its o1servations and results. Where the testin. method could alter or destroy the essential characteristics of the property' temporary possession is not authori2ed under rule 3.+,4,,54d5 and the lawyer should either 4a5 notify the Crown or law enforcement authorities so that the lawyer and the Crown may a.ree on a suita1le testin. process or apply to the court for directions or 415 .ive up possession of the property in accordance with the rule. $he lawyer should .ive up possession of property 0ept for e6amination or testin. as soon as is practica1le. 9here un#er rule 761 .11<.e<, the lawyer ta4es or 4eeps the property to ma4e use of it at trial, the evi#ence shoul# $e #isclose# to the Crown at trial, 0enerally $efore the close of the Crowns case$ If t+e property is not #isclose# until after the close of the Crowns case, the lawyer shoul# not oppose t+e Cro.n's case 0ein/ reopened$ 9here the lawyer ta4es or 4eeps temporary possession in any of the permitte# circumstances, the lawyer shoul# safe0uar# the property to ensure that it is not altere# .for e/ample $y #eterioration< or #estroye#6 9here the lawyer ta4es possession of property relevant to a crime or offence $ut is not permitte# to 4eep temporary possession of it, the lawyer shoul# ma4e arran0ements for the property to $e returne# to the client or other source or #isclose or #eliver it to the Crown or law enforcement authorities in accor#ance with the rule as soon as practica$le6 >> (6 9here Disclosure Shoul# $e ma#e to &uthorities 8+en a la.yer discloses or delivers property relevant to a cri1e or offence to t+e Cro.n or la. enforce1ent aut+orities, t+e la.yer +as a duty to protect t+e client's confidences, includin/ t+e client's identity, and to preserve solicitor and client privile/e$ T+is 1ay 0e acco1plis+ed 0y t+e la.yer retainin/ independent counsel (.+o is not infor1ed of t+e identity of t+e client and .+o is instructed not to disclose t+e identity of t+e instructin/ la.yer), to disclose or deliver t+e property$ )6 &#visin0 the Client '()OR( %&K+*B OR K((P+*B POSS(SS+O* O) PROP(R%: R(L(;&*% %O & CR+M( OR O))(*C(, %-( L&9:(R S-O,LD &D;+S( %-( CL+(*% %-&% (i) t+e la.yer cannot 0e used as a 1eans of alterin/, concealin/, losin/, or destroyin/ t+eproperty, (ii) co11unications 1ade for t+e purpose of alterin/, concealin/, losin/ or destroyin/ t+e property are not protected 0y solicitor and client privile/e, (iii) t+e la.yer 1ay taDe or Deep possession of t+e property only in eAceptional circu1stances, and only t+en te1porarily, and 1ay 0e re=uired to disclose or deliver t+e property to t+e Cro.n or la. enforce1ent aut+orities, (iv) la. enforce1ent aut+orities 1ay sei?e t+e property 0y 1eans of a valid searc+ .arrant, re/ardless of .+et+er t+e property is Dept 0y t+e client or t+e la.yer, and (v) if t+e client c+ooses to Deep t+e p+ysical evidence, (A) t+e client cannot alter, conceal, lose, or destroy t+e property .it+out co11ittin/ a cri1inal offence, (7) t+e la.yer cannot lead t+e client's evidence if t+e client proposes to testify t+at +e or s+e never +ad possession of t+e property, (C) if t+e client persists in t+e instructions descri0ed in (7), t+e la.yer .ill 0e re=uired to .it+dra. as t+e client's counsel su0Cect to t+e rules a0out cri1inal proceedin/s and t+e direction of t+e tri0unal (see su0rules 2$0B (;) 9 (B)), and (D< any evi#ence of alteration, concealment, loss, or #estruction of the property that can $e prove# $y the Crown may $e incriminatin0 evi#ence6 +*;(*%OR: O) PROP(R%: R(C;D, 9-&% &C%+O*S %&K(* %O '( +* )+L( %he lawyer shoul# prepare a .ritten record of all co11unications and actions taDen 0y +i1 or +er respectin/ property relevant to a cri1e or offence$ T+e record s+ould 0e Dept in t+e la.yer's file$ If t+e la.yer taDes or Deeps property in accordance .it+ t+e rule, t+e la.yer s+ould Deep t+e property in t+e file or record in t+e file t+e location of t+e evidence$ B6 See4in0 &#vice an# &uthoriCation A la.yer .+o is asDed to taDe or does taDe property relevant to a cri1e or offence s+ould /enerally seeD t+e advice of senior counsel or t+e -a. (ociety$ %he lawyer is re7uired $y the rule promptly to o$tain the authoriCation of a committee of the Law Society esta$lishe# $y the %reasurer $efore ta4in0 or 4eepin0 temporary possession of the property for testin0 or for use at trial6 %he lawyer shoul# #ocument all communications an# #ealin0s with respect to the property for the purposes of o$tainin0 authoriCation inclu#in0 ma4in0 a recor# of any a#vice o$taine# from senior counsel or the Law Society6

,,