Question Everything…Except the Witness - Tips On Maintaining Impartiality From R. v. Crawford, 2015 ABCA 175

On a frigid January night, Mr. Crawford was along for the ride when one of his companions—fuelled by alcohol and jealous suspicion, and armed with a completely ineffectual pellet gun—decided to steal a vehicle. Mr. Crawford was convicted of theft of an automobile and being a party to a robbery committed with the use of a firearm. Mr. Crawford appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge had made the trial unfair by repeatedly intervening to question the witnesses. The Court of Appeal agreed.

While the facts are hardly relevant to professional regulators, tribunal members can learn much from the Court of Appeal's critique of the trial judge's interventions.

The Court of Appeal held that to determine whether judicial interventions rendered a trial unfair, the ultimate question is not whether the accused was actually prejudiced, but whether a reasonably minded person who sat through the trial would consider it unfair. The Court of Appeal enumerated several of