See also rules 3. It includes documents, electronic information, objects or substances relevant to a crime, criminal investigation or a criminal prosecution. It does not include documents or communications that are solicitor-client privileged or that the lawyer reasonably believes are otherwise available to the authorities.
However, a lawyer must exercise prudent judgment in determining whether such evidence is in fact exculpatory and therefore falls outside of the application of this rule. For example, if the evidence is both incriminating and exculpatory, improperly dealing with it may result in a breach of the rule and also expose a lawyer to criminal charges.
Possession of illegal things could constitute an offense. A lawyer in possession of incriminating physical evidence should carefully consider his or her options, which may include consulting with a senior legal practitioner. These options include, as soon as reasonably possible:. If retained, the lawyer and independent legal counsel should consider. I disclose or deliver the evidence to law enforcement authorities or the prosecution, or. II both disclose and deliver the evidence to law enforcement authorities and to the prosecution;.
The lawyer's advice to a client that the client has the right to refuse to divulge the location of physical evidence does not constitute hindering an investigation. A lawyer who becomes aware of the existence of incriminating physical evidence or declines to take possession of it must not counsel or participate in its concealment,destruction or alteration.
The prosecutor exercises a public function involving much discretion and power and must act fairly and dispassionately. The prosecutor should not do anything that might prevent the accused from being represented by counsel or communicating with counsel and, to the extent required by law and accepted practice, should make timely disclosure to defence counsel or directly to an unrepresented accused of all relevant and known facts and witnesses, whether tending to show guilt or innocence.
If that cannot be done the lawyer should, subject to the rules in Section 3. The lawyer should not in effect appear as an unsworn witness or put the lawyer's own credibility in issue. The lawyer who is a necessary witness should testify and entrust the conduct of the case to another lawyer.
There are no restrictions on the advocate's right to cross-examine another lawyer, however, and the lawyer who does appear as a witness should not expect to receive special treatment because of professional status.
The lawyer may, however, properly discuss the evidence with a witness who is adverse in interest. But a lawyer should not conduct or cause another, by financial support or otherwise, to conduct a vexatious or harassing investigation of either a member of the jury panel or a juror. A lawyer's responsibilities are greater than those of a private citizen. The rule prohibits obstruction or improper discussion by any lawyer involved in a proceeding and not just by the lawyer whose witness is under cross-examination.
There is therefore no justification for obstruction of cross-examination by unreasonable interruptions, repeated objection to proper questions, attempts to have the witness change or tailor evidence, or other similar conduct while the examination is ongoing.
Can-Dive Services Ltd. C and Iroquois Falls Power Corp. Jacobs Canada Inc. But a lawyer should not conduct or cause another, by financial support or otherwise, to conduct a vexatious or harassing investigation of either a member of the jury panel or a juror. A lawyer should take care not to weaken or destroy public confidence in legal institutions or authorities by irresponsible allegations. The lawyer in public life should be particularly careful in this regard because the mere fact of being a lawyer will lend weight and credibility to public statements.
Yet, for the same reason, a lawyer should not hesitate to speak out against an injustice. However, judicial institutions will not function effectively unless they command the respect of the public, and, because of changes in human affairs and imperfections in human institutions, constant efforts must be made to improve the administration of justice and thereby, to maintain public respect for it.
Their inability to do so imposes special responsibilities upon lawyers. Second, if a lawyer has been involved in the proceedings, there is the risk that any criticism may be, or may appear to be, partisan rather than objective. Third, when a tribunal is the object of unjust criticism, a lawyer, as a participant in the administration of justice, is uniquely able to, and should, support the tribunal, both because its members cannot defend themselves and because, in doing so, the lawyer contributes to greater public understanding of, and therefore respect for, the legal system.
A lawyer should, therefore, lead in seeking improvements in the legal system, but any criticisms and proposals should be bona fide and reasoned. FAQ: Complaints and Discipline. Member Portal. Lawyer Directory. Share Top. Support and Resources For Lawyers.
Act Rules and Code. Code of Professional Conduct for British Columbia. According to Art. Since the law does not provide time limits for the retrial of a case, in practice, a case can be retried a number of times. Over the years, it has become a serious problem that judges accept money, gifts and invitations for meals from both the plaintiff and defendant. The lifestyle of judges and their family should be compatible with their position and income Art. It is true that some Chinese judges are disturbed to see that some lawyers have become rich so quickly, while they are far behind.
Thus, they look for ways to gain economic benefits. Some Chinese estimate that the grey illegally gained income, has made the average income of Chinese judges higher than that of lawyers In Chinese culture, people are fond of comparing status, rank, income, lifestyle, etc.
As a matter of economic progress, material life has improved for most Chinese in recent years: this makes it possible for people to choose a profession more in accordance with their own personal wishes than from the pressure to survive. On the other hand, it is also the responsibility of the government to ensure that judges receive sufficient income to maintain a good lifestyle.
It is reported that some courts, especially at basic level, could not even guarantee that judges receive their salary on time. Under such circumstances how could one expect judges to be clean and honest in performing their duty? In more concrete terms, the Code requires judges to respect the human dignity of the parties. They should earnestly and patiently listen to the parties to a case in expressing their views and should not interrupt or stop them at will unless for the reason of maintaining court order.
In addition, judges should use standard and civilised language and should not admonish or apply improper words to the parties Art. In the courtroom, judges should follow courtroom rules and supervise all persons there to do the same.
Some Chinese judges are extremely short of training in this respect. Some judges have been seen smoking, drinking tea and using mobile phones, as well as actually leaving the courtroom, while the trial is in progress Some judges abuse their privileged position and power, criticising and rebuking parties, etc. Moreover, training of judges in this aspect needs to be strengthened. A good image and authority of the judiciary cannot be established without the civilised and professional behaviour of judges.
It outlines an ideal judge: holding rich social experiences and profound understanding of social reality; having belief in their devotion to their duty, judging cases according to law, upright and never stooping to flattery and not seeking private gains; having the intuitive knowledge of punishing evil and encouraging good, enhancing justice; having the character of fair-mindedness, kindness, modesty and prudence; and enjoying a good personal reputation Art.
In their daily lives judges should exercise strict self-discipline, be cautious in their words and deeds, have high moral values and be good models of social morality and family virtue Art. However, setting up high standards in the Code is definitely needed for enhancing and improving the professionalism of judges and is essential for the deepening of judicial reform.
Unlike other principles, such as independence and neutrality, the realisation of which depends on many elements, some of which are beyond the control of courts and judges, self-improvement standards can be reached by serious commitment to the judicial profession.
Consequently, education in this should be intensified. Judges must stop harmful hobbies and conduct, which are incompatible with the public interest, public order, social public morality and good customs and which may affect the good image of judges and their ability to fulfil judicial functions fairly Art.
Article 40 states that judges should be cautious in going to places of entertainment, in making friends and in treating and contacting parties to cases, lawyers and other people in order to prevent generating public doubt about the fairness and integrity of judges and to prevent possible worries and embarrassment in exercising their duties.
Moreover, when publishing articles or being interviewed by the media, judges should exercise caution, should not make inappropriate comments on specific cases or parties to the cases and should try to avoid causing public doubt about judicial impartiality due to such inappropriate words or deeds Art. As a general rule, judges who are involved in extra-judicial activities should not allow these activities to interfere with their performance of their judicial duties.
In conducting extra-judicial activities, judges should not disclose or use unpublished judicial information, commercial secrets, personal secrets or other unpublished information that they have obtained during trial cases Art. Judges may participate in academic research or other social activities that are conducive to legal development and judicial reform.
However, such activities should be based on the conditions that they must be legal, not hinder judicial impartiality and authority and not affect judicial work Art. By implementing the Code, judges should rethink their behaviour as a judge rather than an ordinary citizen. On the one hand, they functioned as judges by settling various disputes and, on the other, they participated in law enforcement of local governments, such as directly taking part in the collection of bank loans Local judges are also sometimes called to join popular legal education activities pufa , develop and promote family planning policy, etc.
Direct involvement in activities that belong to governmental institutions by judges reflects the influence of legal instrumentalism, and undermines judicial independence.
Thus, such activities should also be considered extra-judicial activities and should be limited or prohibited. Article 17 states that if a judge, based on the information he has obtained, is sure that other judges have possibly or actually violated judicial ethics, the result of which has been to affect judicial impartiality, the judge should report the matter to the relevant organs. Article 29 requests judges to report their property honestly according to law. However, these reporting systems need to be concretised.
It is indispensable that interpretation and commentaries are made by the SPC constantly in order to give judges direct guidance. The Internet is becoming a widely used platform for all industries. On a web site 49 , one can find Mr. This judge, besides working in court, has long been involved in writing novels. It is debatable whether a judge who is active in publishing judiciary-related literature, which is a type of extra-judicial activity, is behaving properly under the Code.
Authoritative commentary on this can only be given by the SPC. Many types of behaviour which are prohibited in the Code were, and remain, common practice. Since these types of behaviour have become habitual in much judicial practice, it is not easy to correct them.
For instance, it seems part of a cultural phenomenon for judges to accept money, goods or invitations to have dinner with the parties or people connected with parties. In some cases, judges may not like it but are compelled to do so by their working environment.
It is said that judges sometimes invite each other to dinners intending to use such an opportunity to arrange for a judge to meet one of the parties to a case. If a judge does not accept an invitation first time round, he may be considered to have disrespected the inviter; if he rejects it a second time, he will be treated as unreasonable; and if he rejects it a third time, he is deemed to be an outsider and will be isolated from his colleagues Chinese society is often described as full of human feeling and connections.
It is therefore a tremendous challenge for judges to keep their distance from such cultural and social phenomena while trying to uphold their professional ethics. Consequently, judges should be encouraged to follow the Code conscientiously. In essence, ethical issues are regulated by moral standards.
To improve judicial ethics in China largely depends upon the attitudes of the judges. However, it is always the case that some judges break rules to a remarkable degree, for which disciplinary punishment or even their exclusion from the judiciary seems inevitable.
In dealing with such cases, strict procedures need to be applied. Such institutional changes cover a wide range of aspects. For instance, the system of selection and promotion of judges needs to be redesigned. Candidates should meet not only the formal requirements, such as holding a law degree and passing the national judicial examination, but also other conditions, including fine personal traits, such as being thoughtful, humane and loyal to the highest aims of the profession.
It is advisable that psychological tests should be applied to make selections from among potential candidates. Such selection mechanisms could help to ensure that the door of the judiciary would open only to the most highly qualified candidates. It would also be worthwhile weighing up the pros and cons of the present judicial committee system, which allows members of the committee to decide difficult and significant cases without hearing the case. This system restricts the independence of trial judges.
The Code is absolutely right to highlight the significance of independence, neutrality and other basic principles of the judicial profession. However, true judicial independence cannot be guaranteed without institutional support. Without substantial upgrading on this matter the Chinese judiciary would not be able to strengthen its authority, which is needed for the balance of powers. A weak, and to a certain extent distrusted, judiciary would not be able to bear the function of an independent administration of justice.
The first group includes the excellent model judges. They possess both a high professional capacity and a strong commitment to social justice.
The second group consists of popular judges. Under all kinds of pressures, they do their best to maintain the good image of the courts; they handle most cases fairly and are cautious in judicial practice. However, they are sometimes influenced by their social environment and have acted in a manner incompatible with judicial ethics. This group could be considered as judges shaped by their environment.
Under a reasonable rule of law and a more conducive social environment, they could be good judges. The third group is slack judges. For them, being a judge is a means of supporting their family. Their competence in handling cases is adequate, but they lack any real consciousness of ethical issues. The fourth group is corrupt judges.
They lack professional responsibility, are selfish, take no notice of judicial ethics and violate professional disciplines and the law. Consequently, they are the main cause of the bad image of the judiciary.
0コメント