Article content continued

The trial judge had found nothing unprofessional in Groia’s conduct. The trial had been robust on both sides and the conduct of the OSC was frequently very bellicose. It was a no-holds-barred battle, but as far as is known, the OSC did not generate a complaint about Groia. This appears to have been a spontaneous brainwave of members of the enforcement apparatus of the Law Society. Their motives are not clear, but should be examined in sworn testimony before this grim saga ends.

The militants in the Law Society were heard initially by a three-person panel of the Society, only one of whose members had any criminal law experience. The opening gambit of Groia’s accusers was that Groia’s infractions of professional and barristerial standards had emerged indisputably in the Felderhof trial and that he had no right to defend himself at all before the hearing panel of the Law Society — indeed, that even attempting to do so was a abuse of process. No such offence had been alleged or found at trial and it was proposed to brush past the trial judge and the higher court jurists who confirmed his right to try the case and the rectitude of Hryn’s conduct. Groia was to be condemned on the sole authority of his almost-anonymous enemies in a Law Society Star Chamber.

It shortly emerged in the initial Law Society hearing that Groia had used the word “government” as a supposedly pejorative adjective or noun in reference to the OSC

The purpose of the hearing was to determine the penalty to be imposed on the pre-convicted Groia. The entire notion of an accused putting up a defence of his conduct was to be rejected as not only superfluous, but in itself an affront to the whole concept of due process. As I was myself rather distracted by legal travails at the time, I only followed this vaguely. But having known Groia professionally, I doubted that he would ever behave unprofessionally, and it did seem to me then, as it does now, profoundly disconcerting that officials responsible for ensuring probity and integrity in the legal system and profession should challenge the right of an accused person to any defence at all. Even the Red Queen would take evidence, albeit after the sentence (which also preceded the verdict and the charge, but given the chance, the Law Society might emulate that also).