The Suit Magazine

“Defense counsel should work to ensure that the state plays by the rules, that procedural/evidentiary rules are followed, and that the presumption of innocence is given its full weight,” he told the Suit Magazine in November.
Working on cases which have captured Canada’s national attention, Neville channels his indignation into passionate and persuasive presentations to the jury.  In the heat of the courtroom he represented one of the defendants in the case involving allegedly tainted blood, where three former senior Canadian health officials and a U.S. firm, the Armour Pharmaceutical Company, were charged with criminal negligence in the distribution of tainted blood products beginning in 1982.
Dr. Wark Boucher, former head of the Blood Products Division of the Canadian Bureau of Biologics, was Neville’s client.  In 1997, the Canadian Hemophiliac Society had sent a letter to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) reporting tainted blood products in the mid-1980s.  A Royal Commission/Public Inquiry was convened, and over the next five years the RCMP conducted an investigation.  Then, twenty years after the alleged offense, the case was sent to trial before Ontario Superior Justice Mary Lou Benotto, in 2002.
After cross-examining the Crown’s witnesses, Neville and the other defense counsel took a risk. They presented no defense, but instead went straight to closing arguments.  Her Honor’s ruling vindicated that decision.  Not only did she rule that the Crown counsel had failed to prove a case, but she ruled that the defense line of reasoning had effectively disproved the case.  “It was a wonderful victory,” he said.  “My client had been charged with the ‘wanton and reckless disregard for the well-being of others.’  My client was a fine human being.  So to even use that phrase was unacceptable.”  In the mid-1980s, according to Neville, “little was known about HIV.”  In addition, the prosecutors had made the closing argument that the defendants had “sacrificed” the health of Canadian citizens. Neville countered, “That is a disgraceful argument, presumably made to speak to the media.”
The scientist charged with first-degree murder was also well-represented by Neville, with no help from other attorneys during trial.  Neville exposed one great weakness in the prosecution’s case—a junk-science practitioner of toxicology who had taken the stand as a witness.  The judge ruled that the prosecution’s evidence was inadmissible because it was faulty science; the judge wouldn’t even qualify him as an expert. In fact, a second Crown witness recanted his testimony at a later date.  His Honor issued a stay of the proceedings, finding the prosecution guilty of unreasonable delay.  After the verdict, the dramatic case got airtime as a documentary on a Canadian Broadcasting Company radio broadcast.    
In 1996, Neville defended the Catholic Church in a scandal that rocked the province of Ontario.  The whole controversy started when his client, Reverend Charles McDonald, was accused of sexual abuse.  That stretched into 2002—endless issues—finally, again, a stay of proceedings—again the prosecution was found guilty of unreasonable delay.  “A rogue police officer had refused to cooperate.  The purported victim turned out to be non-credible,” he remembered, seeming to shake his head over the phone. 
During his career, Neville also encountered the legendary Jimi Hendrix, rock guitar master of the ‘60s.  John O’Driscoll, a friend and mentor from his school days at the University of Toronto law school, introduced him to Hendrix.  “[O’Driscoll] defended Jimi on a heroin charge and invited me to meet him. He was a shy, polite, nice man surrounded by greasy hangers-on, like the entourage of a heavyweight champion,” he explained. 
Looking back, he fondly remembers his uncle and godfather, Al Neville, a criminal lawyer, who first planted the seed for Neville’s legal career.  Later, he received encouraging words from Joseph James, a judge in Toronto, interned/articled with Bill Green, and served as law clerk to Chief Justice Gale, where he also met the legendary G. Arthur Martin.  He learned well.   
“Personal integrity is your most fundamental asset,” Neville pauses, “you should not risk it.”
That sense of integrity ignites a desire to do the right thing, and it carries into his work.  Going against the grain, he defends those who many of us tend to stereotype. These types of cases are prone to sensationalism; in court, they require a fair and vigorous defense. “The complexity and seriousness of my cases has gone up over the years,” he said. 
Neville is also concerned about the politicizing of the criminal justice system.  “Criminal law is a blunt instrument, ill-suited for social change. When combined with zero-tolerance, taking away discretion, you have a perfect recipe for miscarriages of justice because one size does not fit all,” he asserted.

< Prev		Next >