2.2 Duties and Responsibilities of Crown Counsel

Public Prosecution Service of Canada Deskbook

Guideline of the Director Issued under Section 3(3)(c) of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act

December 27, 2019

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

This guideline describes the duties and responsibilities of Crown counselFootnote 1 in carrying out their delegated functions under sections 3(3) and 9(1) of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act.

2. The Conduct of Criminal Litigation

Section 3(3)(a) of the DPP Act mandates the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to initiate and conduct prosecutions under and on behalf of the Crown. The responsibilities placed on Crown counsel as law officers of the Crown flow from the special obligations resting on the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) in the execution of this mandate.Footnote 2 As a result, Crown counsel are subject to certain ethical obligations that may differ from those of other litigants.Footnote 3

The DPP and his or her delegated Crown counsel are vested with substantial discretionary powers.Footnote 4 Public interest considerations require Crown counsel to exercise judgment and discretion which go beyond functioning simply as advocates.Footnote 5 Counsel appearing for the DPP are considered "ministers of justice", more part of the court than proponents of a cause.Footnote 6 The Supreme Court of Canada articulated the duty on prosecutors in its landmark decision in Boucher:

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 the 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 a greater personal responsibility. It is to be efficiently performed with an ingrained sense of the dignity, the seriousness and the justness of judicial proceedings.

In Regan,Footnote 7 the Supreme Court further explained that the "minister of justice" responsibility is not confined to the courtroom and attaches to Crown counsel in all dealings in relation to an accused person whether before or after charges are laid. The Court further described the "minister of justice" function as follows:

These statements suggest at least three related but somewhat distinct components to the "Minister of Justice" concept. The first is objectivity, that is to say, the duty to deal dispassionately with the facts as they are, uncoloured by subjective emotions or prejudices. The second is independence from other interests that may have a bearing on the prosecution, including the police and the defence. The third, related to the first, is lack of animus—either negative or positive—towards the suspect or accused. The Crown Attorney is expected to act in an even-handed way.

Fairness, moderation, and dignity should characterize Crown counsel's conduct during criminal litigation.Footnote 8 This does not mean that counsel cannot conduct vigorous and thorough prosecutions. Indeed, vigour and thoroughness are important qualities in Crown counsel. In fact, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that vigorous Crown advocacy is "a critical element of this country's criminal law mechanism" in Cook:Footnote 9

Nevertheless, while it is without question that the Crown performs a special function in ensuring that justice is served and cannot adopt a purely adversarial role towards the defence … . [I]t is well recognized that the adversarial process is an important part of our judicial system and an accepted tool in our search for the truth …. Nor should it be assumed that the Crown cannot act as a strong advocate within this adversarial process. In that regard, it is both permissible and desirable that it vigorously pursue a legitimate result to the best of its ability. Indeed, this is a critical element of this country's criminal law mechanism. In this sense, within the boundaries outlined above, the Crown must be allowed to perform the function with which it has been entrusted; discretion in pursuing justice remains an important part of that function.

Criminal litigation on the part of the Crown, however, should not become a personal contest of skill or professional pre-eminence.Footnote 10

The conduct of criminal litigation is not restricted to the trial in open court. It also encompasses Crown counsel's prosecutorial authority leading up to trial, including, for example, the decision to prosecute, referring an alleged offender to an alternative measures program, disclosure, decisions on judicial interim release, the right to stay proceedings or withdraw charges, elect the mode of trial, grant immunity to a witness,Footnote 11 prefer indictments, join charges and accused, consent to re-elections, and consent to the waiver of charges between jurisdictions. Both in and out of court, Crown counsel exercise broad discretionary powers. Courts generally do not interfere with this discretion unless it has been exercised for an oblique motive, offends the right to a fair trial, or otherwise amounts to an abuse of process.Footnote 12 Accordingly, counsel must exercise this discretion fairly, impartially, in good faith and according to the highest ethical standards. This is particularly so where decisions are made outside the public forum, as they may have far greater practical effect on the administration of justice than the public conduct of counsel in court.Footnote 13

In the conduct of criminal prosecutions, Crown counsel have many responsibilities. The following are among the most important.

2.1. The duty to ensure that the mandate of the Director is carried out with integrity and dignity

Counsel fulfill this duty by:

2.2. The duty to maintain judicial independence Footnote 18

Counsel fulfill this duty by:

2.3. The duty to be fair and to maintain public confidence in prosecutorial fairness Footnote 20

In order to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice, Crown counsel must not only act fairly; their conduct must also be seen to be fair. One can act fairly while unintentionally leaving an impression of secrecy, bias or unfairness.

Counsel fulfill this duty by:

2.4. The duty to maintain objectivity

Counsel fulfill this duty by:

2.4.1. Inflammatory remarks and conduct

As part of the Crown's duty to be fair, counsel are obliged to ensure that any comments made during jury addresses are not "inflammatory."Footnote 31 Whether an address will be considered to be inflammatory is determined by looking at the number and nature of the comments, the specific language used and the overall tone of counsel's address. Inflammatory conduct or comments could render a trial unfair.Footnote 32

The kinds of comments and conduct that the courts have found to be "inflammatory" (and thus could render the trial unfair) can be divided into six categories:

3. Conflict of Interest

The special ethical obligations on Crown counsel, as "ministers of justice" demand the highest standards of honesty and integrity. Crown counsel's conduct should garner the public's confidence and trust. Thus, it is important that Crown counsel avoid actual, perceived or potential conflicts of interest.Footnote 39 An easily identifiable conflict of interest may arise where, for example, counsel prosecutes a former client.

Crown counsel should not participate in any prosecution involving an accused, a victim or a material witness who is a relative, a friend, or anyone else in respect of whom there is an objectively reasonable perception of conflict of interest. If the matter is already before the court when the conflict becomes apparent, Crown counsel should notify defence counsel and the court and disqualify themselves from the case.

4. Providing Legal Advice

Crown counsel provide legal advice to investigative agencies and departments within the federal government and to law enforcement agencies involved in enforcing federal law.Footnote 40 The primary purpose of providing this legal advice is to help ensure that evidence is gathered in a manner that will be admissible at trial. This involves compliance with the Charter, the Canada Evidence Act and other legal principles. Crown counsel may also advise on the sufficiency and relevance of evidence and identify areas requiring investigative follow-up. Crown counsel may provide legal advice relating to police investigative techniques, which do not relate to a specific case, but may affect the admissibility of evidence in future prosecutions.

Counsel's duty is to give independent legal advice on criminal law matters. In regulatory matters, this may include advising investigative agencies about the criminal law issues arising from an investigation, practice, or policy. Counsel have a further responsibility to discuss the public interest implications with a department or agency contemplating a prosecution and to apply the Attorney General's directive regarding those interests.Footnote 41

When advising investigative agencies, Crown counsel must always be mindful of the distinct roles of the investigator and the prosecutor in the administration of justice.Footnote 42 Given the increasing complexity of law enforcement, counsel often become involved at the investigative stage to help ensure that the investigative strategies, techniques and procedures are consistent with the rules of evidence and with the Charter as well as to advise investigators on the nature of the evidence required, the scope and direction of the investigation, the use of investigative powers, the sufficiency of evidence and the quality of the witnesses. Effective management of complex litigation requires pre-charge cooperation between the police and Crown counsel. However, the existence of such cooperation does not diminish the need for an independent, impartial assessment of both the evidence and public interest considerations when the decision is made as to whether to prosecute.

4.1. Solicitor-client privilege

Information subject to solicitor-client privilege, including Crown counsel's legal advice to government departments and investigative agencies, normally is exempt from the Crown's disclosure duty.Footnote 43 Consequently, Crown counsel may not release a legal opinion, refer to it, or describe it in any fashion to defence counselFootnote 44 or the public unless the privi-lege has been waived or it meets the "innocence at stake" threshold. Crown counsel must be conscious of the fact that not everything they do will be covered by privilege—whether the privilege attaches depends on the nature of the relationship, the subject mat-ter of the advice and the circumstances in which it is sought.Footnote 45 Crown counsel should be aware of internal policies of the relevant investigative agency, and also ensure waivers of privilege are undertaken in accordance of the agency's internal policy.

With law enforcement agencies outside the Government of Canada, the privilege rests with the agency. With departments and agencies within the Government of Canada, the privilege rests with the Crown in right of Canada. In practical terms, however, decisions concerning privilege, such as waiver, are usually made by the government department or agency that received the advice. Counsel should be aware of internal policies of the relevant organization and ensure that any waivers of privilege are done in accordance with the organization's internal policy.

Appendix A: Justice System Participant Misconduct

Allegations relating to conduct by justice system participants constituting criminality or serious procedural or ethical breaches raise particular concerns for the administration of justice. A justice system participant includes a potential witness, police officer, investi-gator, defence counsel or Crown counsel, as well as PPSC employee in the course of their handling of a PPSC matter. To the extent that allegations entail wrongdoing by public servants (including members of the RCMP), this note must be read in conjunction with the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act and thePPSC's Code of Conduct.

Crown counsel, including Crown agents, paralegals and PPSC employees have the responsibility to immediately report allegations of such conduct to PPSC management in writing in a timely fashion. The persons in each office to whom such conduct should be reported should be identified and made known to each office.

Management, in turn, have an obligation to assess the report and act appropriately based upon that assessment. This includes communicating to the employee in writing the man-ner in which the reporting was addressed. If details about the particular steps cannot be communicated because of privacy or privilege issues, then at a minimum the person who raised the matter should be informed that action is being taken.

The person who reported the conduct should be informed that they may raise concerns about the manner in which the matter is being addressed with a Deputy Director (or with the Director, if the conduct had been reported to a Deputy Director). The person may also make a complaint to an appropriate external review body, eg, to a Law Society or police review body, if they continue to have concerns about the manner in which PPSC is addressing the matter.

The report of the misconduct, the management assessment of the report, the management response to the person and the documented follow-up steps must be placed upon the rel-evant files.

A briefing note should be provided without delay to the Deputy Director of Public Pros-ecutions. It must outline the conduct in question, and if it relates to a finding made by a court, explain the specific findings of the court. It must indicate what steps have been taken and what further inquiries or steps will be taken. An Early Warning Report may also need to be prepared.

When applicable, the CFP or their designate must notify in writing the appropriate person within the police force or investigatory body about the matter. This notice will indicate that PPSC management will pay direct attention to the matter and expect to be advised as to what steps, if any, they are taking.

All cases in which the justice system participants were or are involved:

Determinations must be made if additional disclosure to accused persons in relation to open as well as closed files is required. Such disclosure must be made without delay. If such disclosure cannot be made due to concerns relating to a public interest privilege, eg, a public safety concern, the risk of endangering an individual's safety or the proper functioning of a police technique, then steps must be identified to ensure in the most timely and appropriate manner that defence counsel and the Court are made aware of the potential for additional disclosure or of an issue preventing such disclosure. If neither can occur without causing the identified risk, then steps must be taken to ensure that the rights of the accused are safeguarded while the disclosure issue is addressed. Depending upon the circumstance, there may be no alternative to staying the prosecution.

Addressing the safeguarding of the rights of the accused and the proper administration of justice does not relieve counsel or their supervisor or manager from the obligation to en-sure that the matter of the conduct of the justice system participant are addressed in an appropriate, timely manner.

The CFP, Deputy CFP or GC LO should have discussions with the relevant provincial Crown counterpart to discuss what communications should occur in these circumstances. For example, it may be that in cases where there is a concern about police or investigator misconduct that may be appropriate for investigation because of concerns about criminality, eg, perjury, obstruction of justice or other illegal conduct, ‎that a particular police body should be informed along with the provincial Crown (or that the information to them occur with the expectation that they will refer matters to the police for such investigation as they consider appropriate). This will vary depending upon the investigatory structure applicable in each jurisdiction, for example, if there is a special investigative police unit with such specific responsibilities.

The particular allegations, including any findings of a court, as viewed through the lens of our solemn obligations to the court, will determine whether and what additional other steps are required.

[ Previous | Table of Contents | Next ]

Date modified: