Defence lawyer cleared of perjury charge
Leora Shemesh ‘can now hopefully try to rebuild herself and her career’
KITCHENER— In an unusual move, the Crown has withdrawn perjury and obstruction of justice charges against Toronto defence lawyer Leora Shemesh three years after they were laid.
Thursday had been set aside for final arguments in an abuse of process pretrial motion brought forward by Shemesh’s counsel, Marie Henein, who alleged her client’s constitutional rights had been violated and was asking Superior Court Justice Gerald Taylor to stay the charges. Shemesh was set to go on trial in September.
The position of the defence was that federal prosecutors covered up for police misconduct during one of Shemesh’s drug cases in Brampton, and instead targeted her for allegedly telling them, and others, she had a nanny cam video of a Peel police officer stealing money from her client.
But before Thursday’s proceedings began, Crown attorney Michael Carnegie, who works for the provincial attorney general, advised Taylor that he made an assessment on the viability of the case based on extensive disclosure and witness testimony during both the preliminary hearing and during this pretrial motion.
“While we do not subscribe, nor do we endorse the allegations levelled as part of the pending application, the evidence received by this court, coupled with the existing disclosure and preliminary inquiry, compels our present conclusion that we no longer have a reasonable prospect of conviction,” Carnegie said, asking that the charges be withdrawn.
Henein thanked Carnegie for his professionalism and displaying “a desire to get to the heart and truth of the matter.”
But she had less complimentary words for the federal prosecutors who testified under cross-examination that they knew a Peel police officer had lied about stealing money.
“I would hate for people who heard this evidence to think this is how our ... legal system works, it’s actually not, at all, it is in my view a profound aberration,” Henein said.
“What is striking is the conduct of these prosecutors showed not only a remarkable lack of insight into this police officer, but I think what is more troubling is, no insight, even with the benefit of hindsight, as to the obligations and the role they were expected to pursue in the highest traditions. It was not the conduct that I’m used to.”
Henein added that the defence team is grateful that “after three long years ... Ms. Shemesh can now hopefully try to rebuild herself and her career, and walk into the court knowing at the least that the justice system actually does work the way it’s supposed to.” The judge, who at times seemed surprised by some of the testimony offered by prosecutors, said it was a “positive outcome” that Shemesh can continue with her career at the bar. He praised the high level of advocacy and civility demonstrated by both sides, “forcefully putting forward their positions but doing so in a respectful and civil manner. Had I had been required to make a decision, it would have made my job a difficult job, but much easier than it otherwise had been.”
Outside the Waterloo Region Court House, Shemesh said she is “elated after three torturous years.” She thanked her counsel and the members of the legal community who supported her.
“Never in my wildest dreams did I ever think that I would ever be myself in the courtroom having to be fingerprinted and photographed and having to go through being a participant in the very system that I love so much and have been passionate about for so long.”
Shemesh said she will continue to vigorously defend her clients. “I hope everybody learned something from this.”
Defence lawyer Gary Grill, who represented Shemesh at the preliminary hearing, said outside court the case demonstrates how defence lawyers must “stand in the path of fire” when they vigorously defend clients against “questionable conduct” by police, and sometimes even prosecutors.
Edward Sapiano, another defence lawyer and friend of Shemesh’s, sat through the preliminary hearing and said he had never seen “a clearer example of the court’s process being abused for the purpose of attacking a defence lawyer who had repeatedly, skilfully and courageously unearthed police and prosecutorial malfeasance.”
SHEMESH from GT1