Trust in a nation’s justice system is based on the principle that all citizens are awarded fair and equal treatment under the law. In Canada ninety percent of criminal cases are adjudicated through a process of unsigned plea bargains which lack accountability. Corrective legislation like the proposed “Bill of Integrity” first drafted in 1999 to address this matter was looked at by members of parliament and forwarded to the Attorney General and the Minister of Justice in 2002. Receiving a written response, I was informed that there were no specific provisions regarding plea bargains that had to be followed, but despite this admission by Ottawa it was stated there was no need for the proposed legislation.

The reasons given on why it would not enhance the integrity of the legal profession and the courts were as follows…(1)“The vast majority of dealings between Crown attorneys and defence counsel are already characterized by the utmost of professional honesty, courtesy, and integrity in criminal court proceedings.” —(2)“While adversaries, they are nonetheless bound by their professional codes of conduct and procedural rules.” —(3)“While counsel on both sides are occasionally forced to abandon a previously agreed to sentence submission, they do so for valid and ethical reasons, such as client instructions or the emergence of new facts.”

(Modefied from the original but equal in its purpose, I written an updated draft with one change, which I will explain when I address the government’s reasons for not supporting the original proposal in 2002.)

“The Bill of Integrity”

(Plea-bargain)

(1) —If a plea of ‘Guilty, is brought before the courts; it must be accompanied with a signed document that outlines in specific terms; both the charge and the length of sentence agreed to by all parties involved.

(2) —Agreed upon evidence that is relevant must be submitted in writing at time of sentencing, this includes any preliminary hearings where such evidence is proven and has been agreed to by all parties involved. If necessary and agreed upon, oral submissions must become part of the public record.

(3) —Signatures of the rightfully involved parties are deemed to be the following:

[a] –The Defence Attorney

[b] –The Defendant (if choosing to proceed without counsel must also sign off in space provided for defense attorney; stating: “Acting as own counsel.”)

[c] –The Prosecuting Attorney

[d] –The Sentencing Judge

The purpose of this bill is to ensure judicial integrity in plea bargaining across the country. The legislation would strengthen the principles of “Due Process” and ensure the legal rights of accused citizens are protected. [ A plea which is signed by all parties would enhance the integrity of the legal profession and show respect for the process.]

Note: The change made from the original proposal is the removal of the, “Victim” as a party to the plea-bargain. After legal consultation and thought, I have concluded that this change is not only warranted, but needed. At trial, a victim or family member has the ability to make a presentation, (Victim impact statement) a right that is absolutely necessary and proper. Adding the victim’s required signature to the plea agreement is unnecessary alongside a victim impact statement and by excluding it from the plea the court cannot be held hostage to animosity. A judge determines guilt or innocence based on evidence given and challenged, and in the case of a plea bargain, a signed agreement qualifies the process, including the length of sentence offered which the defendant must agree to. Once presented to the court, the judge can either sign off on the plea or refuse it; if the latter is chosen, the judge can seek a new agreement and consider bail if required while a trial date is being set.

Now let’s take a closer look at the three reasons given for dismissing the need for the “Bill of Integrity in 2002 and consider the highlighted responses I have added:

(1) “The vast majority of dealings between Crown attornerys and defence counsel are already characterized by the upmost of professional honesty, courtesy, and integrity in criminal court proceedings;” and, (2)“While adversaries, they are nonetheless bound by their professional codes of conduct and procedual rules.” …In “Poor Man’s Justice it is made clear why these self-serving narratives have no merit…If the deception used by the justice system in my case is ignored, the question still exists, “Could this happen when there is no accountability built into the process?” The answer is clearly Yes!

The justice system’s third explanation on why there is no need for legislation regarding judicial intergrity is even more astonishing!

(3) “While counsel on both sides are occasionally forced to abandon a previously agreed to sentence submission, they do so for valid and ethical reasons, such as client instructions or the emergence of new facts.”

…This far reaching explanation has absolutely no bearing on why a bill that requires the signatures of all parties to a plea-bargain should not exist! If a plea is to be abandoned, there is no plea! Remember, it is the defendant who must agree to the offer and if for any reason it is taken off the table, he/she must be told why. This includes any new facts as suggested. If new evidence is presented to the bench before the agreed upon charge and sentencing is completed; the judge can withhold his/her signature and order a case to trial…or ask for a new signed plea which can be submitted if new evidence is undisputed.

Manufactured senerios, like “new evidence” being passed off as a reason to avoid accountability muddy’s the waters. In a trial setting new evidence presented by the prosecution can be questioned by the defence. The third excuse avoids accountability and suggests sentencing could proceed on evidence that has not faced cross-examination. Such a blantant disregard for due process leaves one to wonder if it is a signed plea-bargain that the justice system fears…and why?. Manipulating someone into a plea, knowing it does not exist as happened in my case is about as far away from being fair and just as you can get…but to do so while maintaining an ability to vilify, degrade, and dehumanize someone with manufactured and unquestioned innuendo is a disgraceful judicial act which is criminal in itself. In my case, government paid lawyers sat at both tables…prosecution and defence. On both sides, innuendo and falsehoods went unquestioned, such as my panic attack that happened days before the assault, which was falsly described as occuring ten years earlier. The psychatrist’s conclusion in the forensic report stated that my severe depression and inability to fully understand my actions should be a considered factor in sentencing, which also went unmentioned by the judge who’s only reference to the doctor’s findings was the amount of alcohol consumed that night.

To be clear, I never denied the assault and was found huddled against the wall of our community’s police station a half-hour later. In an interview after my release I was told the man was hospitalized for two days while recovering from a knife wound that needed stiches, and thankfully not more. For that reason I have always stated that this story is not about guilt or innocence, but the manipulation of legal and ethical principles which led to a denial of due process. The dishonestly offered plea bargain and deceptive lie used in the waiver of my suspension hearing was an attack on judicial integrity that should never happen again. Combined, they might well be the reason behind Ottawa’s present day bail reform which is under scrutiny as a means to get around these very issues which the justice system has been aware of for over two decades. Whether it is the case or not, a signed plea bargain identifying a crime and length of sentence would enhance the court’s integrity, as it would for the N.P.B. and Corrections Canada when it comes to having explanations on signed waivers, which absent in my case led to a vindictive revocation which nearly took my life.

David Mitchell: A father, grandfather and proud citizen of Canada.