In her Globe and Mail column today about the Michael Bryant case, Christie Blatchford writes that the former attorney general’s lawyer, Marie Henein, provided the Crown with “disclosure of her ‘full file’” — a move that Henein described as unprecedented in her career.
David Butt, a former Crown lawyer who’s now a member of the defence bar, told the Toronto Star that this decision “in many situations is a risky manoeuvre,” but Blatchford cites Henein’s “unwavering confidence in the strength of her case” — not to mention the distinguished lawyer’s confidence in the innocence of her client.
In the end, the gamble worked: special prosecutor Richard Peck came around to Henein’s way of thinking, and explained in detail why the case should not proceed.
The rarity of this occurrence and the circumstances surrounding it has not gone unnoticed. As Blatchford notes, the Crown under normal circumstances would have had much less time and less disclosure from the defence, and as a result, “might conclude, correctly, that it’s a weak case, but odds are he’d let it go to trial.”
Bryant is obviously happy he avoided a protracted legal battle, and said during his press conference, “Nobody is above the law. But no one’s below the law, either.” But given the strain that trials place on the resources of governments and the accused, the question now becomes how the Bryant Effect can be applied to other, lower-profile cases. As Blatchford, who calls Bryant’s treatment “extra-fair,” concludes with regard to the legal system: “some folks get the old beater version, and some the Saab.”