10 January 2009

Posted By Trevor Pritchard

A Brockville Crown attorney stood by a decision he made 14 years ago to support an absolute discharge for a Cornwall lawyer who’d pleaded guilty to obstructing justice.

“I didn’t object to an absolute discharge for (Malcolm) MacDonald,” Curt Flanagan told the Cornwall Public Inquiry Friday. “It was as simple as that.”

In September 1995, Flanagan and MacDonald’s own counsel successfully delivered a joint submission arguing the veteran city lawyer should be granted a discharge for his role in a $32,000 settlement between former altar boy David Silmser and the Alexandria-Cornwall Roman Catholic Diocese.

In the fall of 1993, Silmser accepted $32,000 from the diocese, with the stipulation that he stop pursuing criminal charges against Charles MacDonald.

Malcolm MacDonald had acted as the priest’s lawyer and had drafted the final version of the settlement.

In his submissions, Flanagan gave four reasons why he felt Malcolm MacDonald deserved an absolute discharge – one of which was the fact Cornwall police had decided “independently” of the settlement not to lay any charges against Charles MacDonald.

“What I’m saying is that it would have been more aggravating (if) the police would have gone ahead and laid criminal charges,” he told commission counsel Karen Jones.

“They had decided independently that there wasn’t sufficient evidence to go ahead and lay criminal charges. That’s why I said it.”

Flanagan also argued a discharge was warranted because Malcolm MacDonald’s lawyer had pointed out the Law Society of Upper Canada – a self-governing body for Ontario lawyers – had been notified of the conviction, and it could take its own disciplinary action.

But Flanagan told Citizens for Community Renewal lawyer Juda Strawczynski he didn’t know who informed the law society of the complaint. Nor had he ever seen the specific complaint the law society received.

Those factors should have made the law society’s notification an “irrelevant consideration” in the argument for a discharge, Strawczynski suggested.

“I don’t agree,” said Flanagan. “I considered it relevant at the time, and I think the judge did as well.”

Dallas Lee, an attorney for The Victims Group, called Malcolm MacDonald’s discharge a “rather big deal” in Cornwall at the time.

 He asked Flanagan if he ever considered how the community would react to the discharge.

“I’m sure it would have been on my mind, but I can’t tell you today if I did or didn’t,” said Flanagan. “I don’t remember.”  

“Did you understand that there were protests afterwards?” asked inquiry commissioner Normand Glaude.

“I know it now,” said Flanagan.

There were two other lawyers involved in the $32,000 settlement: Jacques Leduc, who represented the diocese, and Sean Adams, who gave Silmser independent legal advice and whose signature appeared on the final documents.

When Leduc testified at the inquiry last year, he said he clearly told Malcolm MacDonald the settlement should not mention any criminal proceedings. He also told the inquiry he didn’t look at the final documents until news of the $32,000 payout became public.

“Had you ever put your mind to the fact the other two lawyers may have been as responsible as Malcolm MacDonald at any time?” asked Jones.

“I don’t believe it came up,” said Flanagan.

Although Charles MacDonald was charged by the Ontario Provincial Police with sexually abusing a number of young boys, those charges were stayed in 2002 after a judge ruled the priest’s right to a timely trial had been violated.

The inquiry resumes Monday with a new witness.

For most every other citzen that uses the accuse i didn,t know i was breaking the law or i didn,t look at the paper i signed.THE judges answer to you is ignorance of the law is no defence.But if your a lawyer or a policeman or a crown its ok. 

Anyone ever get a response???)

I'm NOT surprised! 

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #5 By RealityChecker,