,
8 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
I'll point out one more stumbling block regarding pressure on the AG to cut SNC-Lavalin a deal. The prosecution is carried out by the Director of Public Prosecutions, who is largely independent of the AG & appointed for a non-renewable 7-year term .../2 ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/bas/index.…
The DPP has a staff of about 1000, and is independent of (but subject to the supervision of) the AG... /3 ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/pub/fpsd-s…
The AG can issue a directive to the DPP about a prosecution or even assume conduct of a prosecution, but must do so in writing and a notice must be published in the Canada Gazette. .../4
Otherwise, as the DPP is independent, appointed for a fixed term and a career lawyer, the AG cannot exert influence on the DPP. Influence on the AG therefore does not trickle down to the DPP who is charged with the prosecutions .../5
The relationship is tricky, since the DPP reports to the AG, and the AG reports to cabinet, but it is set up with people who take seriously the independence of the of the Director of Public Prosecutions from any political interference. ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/pub/fpsd-s…
So, leaning on the AG in cases like Lavalin really have little practical effect on this kind of prosecution, unless the AG is going to use the nuclear option of publicly taking charge of the case in writing and published in the Canada Gazette. ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/bas/index.…
As a footnote, I think some people get confused between govt instructions in civil versus criminal cases. Interfering in criminal cases is verboten, but the Dept of Justice actively does and should instruct lawyers in civil cases brought against the Crown.
As a PPS, here's an article about the absolute independence of the DPP:
