Re the Complaint of Dr. C. J. KRIEKENBEEK against A. J., a Proctor of the Supreme Court.

Re the Complaint of Dr. C. J. KRIEKENBEEK against A.

 J., a Proctor of the Supreme Court.

 

Advocate and client-Appearing without retainer or other just cause- Intermeddling in conduct of case by advocate-Bullying witness- Tyrannizing cross-examination-Freedom of speech and of relevant questioning-Tenure of such privileges as public trust, involving responsibilities to the public and the profession.

The profession of an advocate is a most honourable one, and it is a noble duty of his to be ready when duly called upon to defend pro deo the right of the poor and the unprotected.

But it would open the door to much mischief if liberty were conceded to volunteer advice uninvited, or to offer to shape the accused's plea, or even to defend him pro deo.

Without retainer, an advocate's intermeddling in any of these ways would be impertinent and unprofessional; with it, whether for fee or pro deo, he would undertake grave responsibilities from which he could not lightly free himself, and would alter the career of the case, because he could not himself speak to facts, and his appearance on behalf of the suitor would shut his mouth also.

In conducting a case it is quite unworthy of an advocate to indulge in the small tyranny of cross-examination, or to enter into a contest with a witness giving evidence, or to " bully " him for impertinence or evasiveness.

The duty of checking a witness for such conduct lies on the Court and not on the advocate.

In the exercise of the great principles of freedom of speech and liberty of relevant questioning it should never be forgotten that advocates hold such privileges as a public trust, and that they will discredit an honourable profession every time they perm it themselves to prostitute them to the gratification of personal ends. Advocates should be always mindful of the responsibility which they owe to the public and the profession.

THE complaint preferred in this case to the Supreme Court was to the effect that on the 24th April, 1878, when the ayah of the complainant, who held the office of Assistant Colonial Surgeon at Colombo, was called upon to take her trial in the Colombo Police Court and to plead to a charge of neglect of duty there preferred against her by her master. Dr. Kriekenbeek, Mr. A. J., a proctor, then happening to be present, without retainer from the accused or any other just cause, thrust himself forward as her advocate, and in that capacity took occasion, by deliberately offensive and irrelevant cross-examination, to annoy and bully the prosecutor solely for the purpose of gratifying a personal ill-feeling previously entertained by him towards the complainant for private reasons.

The Supreme Court directed a rule to issue against Mr. A. J., calling upon him to show cause why he should not be disenrolled for professional misconduct.

The following is the affidavit which the respondent (Mr. Proctor A. J.) filed in reply: -

'" The woman mentioned in the affidavit of Charles John '' Kriekenbeek did plead first guilty to a charge of neglect of "duty, but simultaneously with that plea she said, in Tamil, ' I " 'am guilty because I have been brought into Court, but I had no " ' strength to raise the tub which I was ordered ,to carry,' or '' words to that effect. It was clear from the statement of the " woman that she had pleaded guilty from ignorance of law, since " she could not be guilty of neglecting to do what was beyond " her power to do. Her story carried a strong probability with it, " especially as the plaint did not specify the duty for the neglect " of which she then stood charged. In cases of this kind it is " usual for one of the senior proctors to undertake the defence "pro deo. The several Magistrates who have presided over the " Colombo Police Court always approved of proctors defending "the poor without a fee, and not unfrequ

Click Here to Read the rest of this document