quote:

---

If my client tells me X, I am supposed to turn around and tell the police this same X?

So much for the right to remain silent.

---

Jeff, What if the client tells you that he indeed did physically and sexually abuse his 2 year old child and further strangled his wife (the child's mother) till she became purple when she walked in on him doing that ?

If your client told you the "truth", why would confidentiality override the truth ?

quote:

---

What if the client tells you that he indeed did physically and sexually abuse his 2 year old child and further strangled his wife (the child's mother) till she became purple when she walked in on him doing that ?

---

Anything said to me by my client is confidential.

It can be passed on by me only if authorized by the client.

Otherwise, telling the lawyer would be the same thing as telling the police. If that were so, there would be no point in having a lawyer at all. Just appoint a police officer as your counsel.

Of course, I cannot help the client to lie, or allow him/her to testify in a way that I know to be a lie.

And if he tells me he is PLANNING to murder someone, I have to tell.

The Ontario Child and Family Services Act is quite sparkled with...

quote:

---

This section applies despite any other Act, but nothing in this section abrogates any privilege that may exist between a solicitor and his or her client.

---

I guess the answer is no, solicitors -in the instances you mentioned- have no legal obligation to report. It is my guess, and I am eager for Jeff's kind respnse.

BTW, Jeff has stated above

quote:

---

And if he -the client- tells me he is PLANNING to murder someone, I have to tell.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sidra:
This sounds like at some era politicians' moved to legislate in their self-interest. I bet you this "exception" must have been entered following a polictician's assassination in ENgland, or could it be Darcy McGee's !!

---

It doesn't sound like that at all to me. The exception isn't just for murder.

quote:

---

Ontario Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 2.03(3)
Where a lawyer believes upon reasonable grounds that there is an imminent risk to an identifiable person or group of death or serious bodily harm, including serious psychological harm that substantially interferes with health or well-being, the lawyer may disclose, pursuant to judicial order where practicable, confidential information where it is necessary to do so in order to prevent the death or harm, but shall not disclose more information than is required.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sidra:

I still find it baffling that a solicitor is still bound by "confidentiality" even if he/she has knowledge that his/client has in fact -let us say- physically and sexually assaulted a 2 year old.

---

For example, you aver that the obligation to report it when a client is PLANNING a crime, sounds like politicians trying to save their career.

It may sound like that to you, but it was actually a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, not politicians.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sidra:
I still find it baffling that a solicitor is still bound by "confidentiality" even if he/she has knowledge that his/client has in fact -let us say- physically and sexually assaulted a 2 year old.

---

Are you attempting to argue that child sexual assault is a special crime, unlike any other in the criminal code, and therefore the usual rules designed to create fair trials shouldn't hold?

edited for clarity:

[ 24 April 2006: Message edited by: oldgoat ]

I'm assuming that if privilege does attach to such an admission, it doesn't have the same constitutional status as that of solicitor-client privilege, but is there a similar "professional" obligation, written or unwritten, to keep the information confidential?

[ 24 April 2006: Message edited by: Yossarian ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by S1m0n:

Are you attempting to argue that child sexual assault is a special crime, unlike any other in the criminal code, and therefore the usual rules designed to create fair trials shouldn't hold?

If that's the case, you'll need to actually argue that position, because this is not the current understanding of the law.

---

Yeah, what he said.

Sidra - I think I might understand what you're getting at, but keep in mind that most people don't tell their lawyer they've committed a crime until they've already been charged. I get the feeling you are picturing a guilty feeling molestor who goes to a lawyer to confess and then nothing happens and the abuse continues. This is not going to happen (and if it did I would imagine many people would make an anonymous phone call or two) In the rare case where the person who has not yet been charged goes to see a lawyer, it is probably because charges will soon be laid and the person wants legal advice.
Innocent until proven guilty, the right to a fair trial and the right not to self-incriminate are all part of our Constitution. This applies equally to rapists and murderers.

edited for HTML related reasons

[ 25 April 2006: Message edited by: Summer ]

the right to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Originally posted by the Grey
I agree that those charged with even the most heinous offence must be entitled to a legal defence. I do not agreed that they should be able to speak of their crime and it remain confidential as that is keeping evil from being discovered. The Government of the day is stating that Evil is permissible so long as it is hidden and the state cannot prove it and that Government franchaised reprsentatives are allowed to hide evil legally. This attitute of the Government promotes and protects Evil. This tells some citizens it is acceptabe to lie, cheat, steal so long as you can afford a very competent law firm. It is also interesting to know that the confidentially between an Accountant and Client was removed by the Canadian Government, it appears to me because the Accountant might tell the Client how to hide and protect his/her earnings, thus making it difficult to prevent the Government from collecting all the money it wants. But crime against its citizens is acceptabe.

Uh...Do we have to? I feel like Nancy Reagan in this instance --just say "no".

[ 26 April 2006: Message edited by: erroneousrebelrouser ]

But seriously shouldn't it be in some legal advice column or something. And the severity of the subject matter; if I had just popped in I would think that it was kind of...weird?

Ah well I don't really need backing up I realize you guys are talking about this stuff and it is all vital and everything. And interesting, too. The first few paragraphs and some succeeding ones were just, scary... That's all. I realize it 'is' real life. Just seems odd to be in the frequently asked questions, imho.

Now; the other thing that I can't keep in any longer!! Sorry -- Peter. But when you said that, what you said in that thread -- I am the facilitator Peter I am...that old song just kept going around and 'round in my head by -- who was it by? "I'm Henry the eighth I am...pronounced like "Hennery the eighth I am -- I am! I got married to the widow next door -- she's been married seven times before -- so...everyone wants an Hennery! Hennery the eighth I am!
(soooo sorry) mwahahhahaah

[ 26 April 2006: Message edited by: erroneousrebelrouser ]

quote:

---

I believe it was a lawyer that suggested above that is Lawyers did not have confidentially then the person might as well confess to a Police Officer and have him represent him. Works for me.

---

This kind of attitude scares the crap outta me. How many cases have we heard of where people "confessed" to crimes they didn't commit. I've seen several documentaries on police methods for extracting confessions.

quote:

---

Requiring defence counsel to be police agents "worked" for the German Democratic Republic, too, but that doesn't make it smart policy.

---

It is my understanding that one out of five residents of the GDR was reporting to the secret police.

The most surprising case I know of involved a woman who was instructed by her handlers to marry a democracy activist. She did, and lived with him 17 years, having kids with him, and all along providing weekly reports on him to the police.

quote:

---

jeff house: I am speaking pretty freely, but the GDR, like Cuba now, did not have seriously independent defence bars, and the whole place was riddled with espionage agents.

---

What I've been able to find in Cuban law is the following...

quote:

---

Confessions. Cuban procedural law prohibits
violence or force in obtaining a confession, and
specifies that no one is required to testify
against him or herself. Suspects can make whatever
formal statements they wish regarding the charges
against them, including confessions of guilt.
These statements are made orally, and then
presented in writing to the suspect for signature.
Minors under the age of 16 can only make these
statements in the presence of parents or other
legal guardians.
While criminal suspects can confess guilt,
they cannot be convicted solely on the basis of a
confession. Rather, Cuban law requires that all
criminal cases be proven at trial utilizing
evidence beyond the suspect's statement of guilt.

1. Rights of the Accused.

* Accused persons have the right to a trial by a
judicial panel
* Assistance to the accused. Cuban defendants
have the right to a defense counsel. A nationwide
system of law collectives (bufetes colectivos) are
designed to provide public access to legal counsel
at state-set fees.
* etc....

---

So the accused get subsidized legal council or something like that. What would an "independent defence bar" look like, then, in such circumstances? Who would fund it and how would it work? Is an "independent defence bar" only possible with lawyers who get paid directly from their clients?
____________
source: WORLD FACTBOOK of CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS
Cuba by Ray Michalowski
Northern Arizona University

Cuban Law

[ 17 May 2006: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

The role of a criminal defence attorney in a totalitarian state is different. A law professor at the University of Havana put it best: "The first job of a revolutionary lawyer is not to argue that his client is innocent, but rather to determine if his client is guilty and, if so, to seek the sanction which will best rehabilitate him."

---

quote:

---

How do we represent a guilty man? There is a simple, quick and complete answer. Our whole system of criminal justice is built on the basic premise that every man is presumed innocent until he is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. . ."Guilty" in this frame of reference is not a moral term. It is a legal term. No one is legally guilty until a judgment of guilt has been made by the court. . . The accused is entitled to have a trial and to have his legal guilt proven beyond a reasonable doubt by evidence tested in the crucible of cross-examination. He is not entitled to produce perjured evidence in court or to testify falsely. But he is entitled to sit silent and force the proof of guilt. Moral judgments by the lawyer are frequently wrong and he learns not to make them. No lawyer can assume the character of a judge.

---