Crown prosecutor

I am also called the Attorney General’s prosecutor, the public prosecutor or just the prosecutor. My role is to represent the State and to prosecute, in its name, any person who is suspected of commiting a criminal act. In Superior Court, I mainly plead cases of murder, attempted murder, or sexual assault.

In general, I come on the scene even before court proceedings have begun to examine the police investigator’s report. It is up to me to decide if there are sufficient grounds for a criminal prosecution, but in other Canadian provinces it is usually the police investigator who has this responsibility. I have to evaluate whether there is enough evidence to convince the judge or the jury of the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. I have to choose the charge in accordance with the offence committed and cannot pick a less serious charge just because it would allow me to get a conviction more easily. For example, I could not submit a charge of criminal negligence if I had evidence that the accused committed a murder.

The Crown prosecutor’s goal is not to win the trial at all costs but to bring out the truth. If I find any evidence that clears the accused of wrongdoing in the period leading up to the trial or afterward, I must tell the court and drop the charges. This is not always easy to do when you have a competitive nature like mine. So that I never lose sight of the objectivity demanded by my role, I often read and re-read a quote from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada, written in 1955:

“It cannot be over-emphasized that the purpose of a criminal prosecution is not to obtain a conviction, it is to lay before a jury what the Crown considers to be credible evidence relevant to what is alleged to be a crime. Counsel have a duty to see that all available legal proof of the facts is presented: it should be done firmly and pressed to its legitimate strength but it must also be done fairly. The role of prosecutor excludes any notion of winning or losing; his function is a matter of public duty than which in civil life there can be none charged with greater personal responsibility.”

In addition to objectivity, my role also demands transparency. Before the trial, I have to communicate the evidence that I plan to present to the jury to the defence lawyer and I also have to give him the names of all of my witnesses. Sometimes it is possible for me to exclude the name of a witness from the list if I am worried about the person’s safety. This obligation of transparency even demands that I give to the defence any evidence that weighs in favour of acquitting the accused.

During the trial, my role is similar to that of the defence lawyer, but with an important difference: the burden of proof! The accused is presumed to be innocent, so I have to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If the judge or jury has the least doubt as to his guilt, the accused will be acquitted. I therefore have to present very convincing evidence. The defence lawyer only has to raise a reasonable doubt to obtain an acquittal for his client.

The result of a trial is often uncertain. In order to resolve the file without having to go to court, the defence lawyer and I will often negotiate. The popular term for these negotiations is “plea bargaining”. The accused can plead guilty in exchange for a less severe sentence. As a result of negotiations, the accused could also plead guilty to a less serious charge than the one initially brought. For example, I have sometimes agreed to reduce a murder charge to a manslaughter charge. When there is a negotiation for a guilty plea, I will generally take into account the opinions of the police investigator and victim.

Recommending a sentence to the judge is one of the most difficult aspects of my work. The Criminal Code gives a great deal of latitude concerning the choice of sentence for each offence. In my recommendation, I take into account the point of view of the victim, as well as the report from the probation officer. This report gives me an idea of the personality of the accused and the danger that he represents for society.

Even if I ask for the conviction of the accused, I am still sensitive to the effects that this could have on his personal life. I remember a man who killed his father but had psychological difficulties. During the trial, despite the seriousness of the act, I asked for a lighter sentence. Because of the care he had received after the crime, I knew that he was no longer a danger to society. The judge accepted my recommendation. Obviously, I would have proposed a different sentence for a hired killer who was a member of an organized crime ring!

Those, in a few lines, are the various responsibilities and challenges that I have as a lawyer for the prosecution. It is a difficult job, even stressful on occasion, but it is very exciting! What could be more fulfilling than searching for the truth and defending the interests of society?