R. v. Cocks

R. v. Cocks

Both counsel were disqualified because the presumption that partners shared confidential information was not rebutted, confidential information had in fact been shared, and that created a substantial and realistic risk of future conflict and potential mischief threatening trial fairness and public confidence; the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2012 BCSC 1336
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Norman Cocks; Accused: Robert Thomas; Accused: Robert Cocks; Accused: Daniel McRae; Accused: Matthew McRae; Accused: Anson Schell; Accused: Thomas Vaughan
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Second Degree Murder / Pre Trial Application to Disqualify Counsel (disqualification Hearing)
Outcome
Crown's application allowed; both counsel disqualified
Legal Topics
Counsel Disqualification, Conflict of Interest, Joint Representation, Waiver of Privilege, Public Confidence in Administration of Justice, Trial Fairness
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Legal Ethics Procedural Law Administrative Law Counsel Disqualification Conflict of Interest Joint Representation Waiver of Privilege +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 8 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Norman Cocks

Accused

Robert Thomas

Accused

Robert Cocks

Accused

Daniel McRae

Accused

Matthew McRae

Accused

Anson Schell

Accused

Thomas Vaughan

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Second Degree Murder / Pre Trial Application to Disqualify Counsel (disqualification Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether two lawyers from the same firm must be disqualified for representing co-accused due to a real risk of conflict of interest
  2. 2 Whether irrevocable waivers signed by co-accused rebut the presumption that confidential information was shared within the firm
  3. 3 Whether public interest in fair and perceived-fair trials can override client waivers of solicitor-client loyalty

Ratio Decidendi

Both counsel were disqualified because the presumption that partners shared confidential information was not rebutted, confidential information had in fact been shared, and that created a substantial and realistic risk of future conflict and potential mischief threatening trial fairness and public confidence; the waivers did not eliminate that risk and therefore disqualification was necessary.

Court Disposition

Crown's application allowed; both counsel disqualified

Orders

  • Both counsel disqualified from representing the accused in this matter
  • Disqualified counsel must return to the Crown all disclosure materials in their possession or control as soon as possible