Article content continued

It does not appear to be merely a question of money either, though of course, that is part of the equation.

The privately retained lawyers, particularly Henein and Mainville — but also the judge, Ontario Court Judge Heather Perkins-McVey — simply outworked the Crown side. They all knew the file better than any prosecutor. They were better-prepared, terrifyingly so, in fact.

Photo by Errol McGihon/Postmedia

One for instance may suffice.

The lawyer Ian Carter was in court one day last December, representing a witness, a serving member of the CF, who had come forward to the defence and who wanted a publication ban for fear of reprisal.

The witness was the person who was told by a brigadier-general that the reply to an Access to Information request seeking records and emails about Norman, should be “Nil” or no-records-found response.

“Don’t worry,” the witness said the brigadier-general advised, “This isn’t our first rodeo. We made sure we didn’t use his (Norman’s) name.”

So Carter wanted the ban, to protect the witness’s career.

This isn’t our first rodeo

The lead lawyer for the Department of Justice (which represented the various government departments from whom records were sought), Rob MacKinnon, got to his feet and began objecting to the proposed ban.

“I can’t tell, I don’t even know what section of the (Criminal) Code it is…” he began.

“Want my copy?” asked the judge.

Carter got the ban.

My point, prosecutors in this case seemed rarely to have at their fingertips relevant documents, the law they were citing, or arguments marshalled.

2. Curiosity may have killed the cat, but it didn’t lay a glove on the prosecutors.

They were properly lauded Wednesday by Henein, and others, for having come to an independent, un-interfered-with decision to stay the charge against Norman.

But do not make too much of that. It’s a classic of damning with faint praise.

In the end, Mercier and MacFarlane were indeed sufficiently open-minded to accept the enormous brief the defence voluntarily handed them in late March — the entire investigation the defence team had done, including witness statements. Good for them, so far as it goes.

But they were extraordinarily incurious in light of the higher Crown obligations to the “administration of justice,” which means, in practice, to the pursuit of the truth.