,
14 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
I have some thoughts on Greenspan's #SNCLavalin opinion piece. I know Brian is a pillar of the criminal defence bar. He is a legend. He also almost offered me an articling job. This is why it pains me to say this. His opinion piece is a dumpster fire: theglobeandmail.com/opinion/articl…
Brian completely misrepresents the AG's role to independently make decisions. Isolation may breed tyranny but that is not what happened in the SNC case - on anyones evidence. In no interpretation of Shawcross doctrine is the idea of an adversarial relationship the the AG a thing. 
Brian also parrots the talking point that JWR as a decision-maker did not meaningfully examine the SNC case. That is not supported by the evidence. And it disregards the extraordinary, never used, power of an AG to overrule the DPP.
But it gets worse from there. Greenspan's comparison of defence counsel to members of Cabinet and the PMO in terms of persuading an AG to change its mind is completely ludicrous. Apples or organs does not even begin to describe the absurdity of this analogy.
In fact, the analogy demonstrates the whole problem here. Defence counsel can fill their boots trying to persuade, cajole, and pressure a prosecutor (or the AG) but politicians should not be doing the same - especially when electoral interests are leveraged.
And Greenspan's claim that he has had access to AGs and Deputy AGs - sidestepping the idea of political separation from prosecutors - does not help his argument. In fact it raises some serious questions of property. But again, even if not, Greenspan is not the PMO.
Seriously - in what cases did AGs overrule prosecutors, direct prosecutions, or interfere based on Greenspan's advocacy? Names and cases please.
But lets continue. Calling the pressure JWR described (pressure that the PMO does not even bother to deny anymore) "collegial conversations" is pure fiction and a disingenuous argument. One that I am sure a skillful advocate like Brian would NEVER make in court. Because it is BS.
And no JWR didn't treated the DPP as essentially unreviewable. She declined to intervene but that is a different issue. You can't just make stuff up. Even in an op-ed. Even if you are a criminal defence legend.
Maybe Greenspan thinks JWR was a terrible minister of justice. I think she was. Maybe Greenspan does not want a Scheer government. Nor do I. But I do expect a bit more intellectual honest and rigour from him. And his piece actually does an a disservice to an important discussion.
Why? Because he has become an unwitting mouthpiece for SNC. His lack of rigour allows those that will blindly carry water for the Liberals a way to avoid thinking hard thoughts.
This piece could also lead one to wonder if this is one of the opinion pieces the Liberals said they could plant. And given the above - it may have been wise for Greenspan to note his own connections to SNC: canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc…
Look - I know this take is going to enrage the 🍀 crowd AND defence lawyers. But just because Greenspan is a grey-haired dean (a point he leverages in the piece) of the bar does not mean he is correct. Nor does it mean that even those inclined to agree should blindly agree.
Thats it. Bring it.
