Police Investigations 101
High Crimes by Bill Deverell: A Thematic Book Review for Prosecutors
Gilles Renaud | Ontario Court of Justice (1995-2023)
Introduction
In 1981, I completed my studies at the Faculty of Law of the University of Ottawa and read Mr. Deverell’s second novel, High Crimes[1], during my articles. The most valuable advice I received during these years was to read the weekly Ontario Reports and close behind was the guidance of senior litigation lawyers, encouraging me to achieve professional success, by nit wasting time reading law reports but rather to read fiction that was both entertaining and instructive on how people think and act. Many years later, in attempting to write a legal tome on advocacy, I read these words penned by Dean John Wigmore, a leading law professor and writer on evidence: "The lawyer must know human nature. He [or she] must deal understandingly with its types and motives. These he [or she] cannot all find close around ... For this learning he [or she] must go to fiction which is the gallery of life's portraits.”[2] If this proposition is sound, and surely it is, then prosecutors especially must understand humanity, flawed and at times violent and or scheming, as they often are called upon to present as witnesses challenging individuals, and why not turn to fiction to better accomplish this objective?[3]
Decades later, I have purchased and read all this author’s signal output of crime and trial books, and look forward to the next, perhaps an account of the first murder trial in which his wonderful character, A.R. Beauchamp K.C., appeared for the defence and lost. Given the number of miscarriages of justice, Mr. Deverell might wish to allow for an Innocence project to bring about a new trial in which the truth emerges! In any event, all of Mr. Deverell’s books have provided both relaxation after a difficult day’s toil and lessons for me at all stages of my work as a litigator and later as a criminal court judge. In retirement, I now am re-reading each title and am discovering how many more lessons I can cull from his artful pen and wish to share these with other readers – in this case, Crown counsel, though all litigators will profit from his guidance.
Hence, here is a brief overview of the many rebondissements that mark this page turner followed by a thematic overview of the lessons for litigators to be found in this novel.
Discussion
High Crimes – a synopsis
I noted earlier how this novel features twists and turns. This is a stock value of Mr. Deverell’s novels: nothing is ever as it seems and people are revealed to be capable of terrible behaviour as well as signal good deeds. Whenever you think the phase of the trial, the romantic episode you are reading, the work of the police in closing in on a suspect, et cetera, must admit of only one conclusion, the author discloses a dénouement that is startling but always perfectly legitimate if one has read all the prior pages carefully…
This wonderful skill is the fruit of an accomplished career at the Criminal Bar in which Mr. Deverell was both a prosecutor and defence counsel in a great number of prominent cases. Thus, he witnessed numerous surprises and reversals of fortune, and no doubt saw a good number during his earlier seven-year career as a newspaper journalist. Eventually, his success as a litigator became obscured his fame as a writer. Indeed, writing dozens of highly acclaimed legal novels will do that for you!
In sum, this novel contains illustrations of good, bad and ugly cross-examination, instruction on human nature, how to judge judges, defence counsel, police officers and witnesses of every description and background, and anchors our understanding of trial psychology within a framework of understanding base and noble motivations, and how good people make errors and not so good persons colossal ones. The author takes us to Columbia, Newfoundland, Miami, Toronto, the backrooms of Ottawa’s most celebrated clubs to witness plea bargaining at its worst, and within the minds and souls of the tortured individuals who commit crimes for profit or for the sheer hell of it, it seems, not to mention the psyche of those who must serve and protect society. The reader also gains immense knowledge about addiction, and the need for a Charter of Rights and Freedoms when being exposed to the worst of police conduct in looking only to the noble ends being pursued, and not the ignoble methods.
In brief, High Crimes, as in the case of all his criminal trial novels, is a highly entertaining and yet sobering at times explanation of our criminal justice system.
Demeanour
Introduction
Courtroom conclusions by finders of fact are often greatly influenced, more’s the pity in my opinion, by the non-verbal means of communication that are observed and analysed, if not accepted without serious thought. I have written critically on this subject[4] and find it useful merely to quote from Shakespeare’s Macbeth to illustrate the dangers associated with such “evidence”. A few valuable examples from the play are listed below, followed by excerpts from Mr. Deverell’s novel:
1) LENNOX.
What a haste looks through his eyes! So should he look
That seems to speak things strange. [Act 1, sc. ii, l. 47]
2) DUNCAN.
There’s no art
To find the mind’s construction in the face …
[Act 1, sc. iv, l. 11]
3) LADY MACBETH.
… Your face, my thane, is as a book where men
May read strange matters …
Look like the time; bear welcome in your eye,
Your hand, your tongue: look like the innocent flower,
But be the serpent under’t. …
[Act 1, sc. v, l. 57]
4) MACBETH.
… Away, and mock the time with fairest show:
False face must hide what the false heart doth know.
[Act 1, sc vii, l. 82]
5) MACBETH.
… Present him eminence, both with eye and tongue:
… And make our faces vizards to our hearts,
Disguising what they are.
[Act 3, sc. ii, l. 34]
Expression
“He looks at us with an expression that suggests he has been the victim of a great unfairness…” [3][5] The author wrote later: “Peddigrew [defence counsel] looked at him with an expression of shock that Kerrivan [the smuggler of pot] guessed was feigned. He remembered it from the courtroom.” [4] Still later, the Solicitor-General asks: “Tell me, [Inspector], how long have you had a bug in the lawyer’s [hotel] room?” [The Inspector] looked past him, his expression benign …” [4] In other words, as noted in the last quote from Macbeth, feigning is a common skill in our society. In this vein, I note: “His perfect wife fixed a trained eye on Larochelle, offering a smile that was expertly feigned…” [52]
Eyes
“There is a flash of colour on Pete’s face, His eyes glint like ice. These are danger signs…” [13] “… I trust you, Captain Kerrivan. You have an open face. You look me in the eye…” [19] “And there was something else in her eyes that he could not read. … they spoke mysteries…” [32] Does anyone accord a great deal of trust to such conclusions, based on a person’s eyes?
Face
“I look at the photograph and memorize the face. It is the face of a crook…” [9] Later, we read: “Pete’s face is a mask of mixed emotions. There is despair. There is joy …” “… I trust you, Captain Kerrivan. You have an open face. You look me in the eye…” [19]
Frown
“First there is a frown on her face. Then her eyes widen like a scared fawn’s…” [9]
Look
“He has an imploring look. The cops come over, wanting to hear this conversation.” [9]
Scorn
In Chapter 21, one of the detainees described his interrogation in which he answers not a single question: “… two guys [police] working me over verbally, scorn in their eyes.”
Smile
The judge glared tours the prisoner’s box. “Kerrivan returned an innocent smile.” [2] Later, in the same chapter, we read: “[The Inspector] looked at Kerrivan, searching for a signal of surrender in his eyes. But there was just the smile. And, as Kerrivan caught [the Inspector’s eye], there was a soft wink.” “Kerrivan offered a stiff smile. His eyes remained glacial …” Kerrivan looked at [the woman], who smiled her seraphic smile at him…” [19]
Voice
Her voice was tinged with sarcasm… [1] “But there was uncertainty in his voice.” [37]
Human nature
Bad apples
“Sure, there are bad apples – human mistakes walking around in uniform …: [5]
Blunt way of conducting oneself
“Pete’s main error in how he handles people is that he is too blunt, and also he is unwilling to play the games. Throughout, Pete is overconfident…” [12]
Clients ought not to fornicate with lawyer’s spouses
See Chapter 10.
Jury values
“The two men accused were sons of Newfoundland through many generations, and during their years they had carried on honored pursuits. They were sailors. And fishermen. And smugglers.” [1]
Legalize pot
The Solicitor-General states to the Senior RCMP Inspector: “Maybe it would be cheaper just to legalize pot completely. Half the damn civil service smokes the stuff.” [5] We are informed at paragraph 19 by a drug produced: “… Soon these products will be legalized …”
Memory
“… you were so concerned about protecting a call-girl operation that you couldn’t seem to remember [last night] a goddamn thing.” “Some things come back. Soon as I saw her, I remembered. She was here that night.” [31]
Overconfidence
“Pete’s main error in how he handles people is that he is too blunt, and also he is unwilling to play the games. Throughout, Pete is overconfident…” [12]
Secrets
“… There is a maxim by La Rochefoucauld: ‘If you cannot keep your own secrets, do not expect anyone else to keep them for you.”[6]
Judicial perspective
Claim not to know the law
“I've never heard of that case [defence counsel]. Read it aloud if you wish. Educate me…” [2] go back
Cold heart
The author included this comment: “… a day as cold as a magistrate’s heart…” [3]
Desire to be educated about unlawful drugs
Refer to Chapter 2: “But you see, [defence counsel]”, the judge said, “I am interested in this business. I’m really an innocent when it comes to drugs and such, and the more I learn, well, the better a judge I will be, don’t you think?”
Judicial perspective
“I don't know what kind of behavior it is that you're allowed in other courtrooms, Mr. Pettigrew [defence counsel], but you're in a Newfoundland courtroom now. It happens to be my courtroom.” [Emphasis in original] [2]
Protect witnesses
“… There isn't a court in the world that doesn't protect witnesses from bullies with law degrees.” [2] Later, the author wrote: “I do not allow lawyers to badger police witnesses… you ate not to threaten the witness. And if you can avoid the tedium of repetition, please do that as well.” [2]
Record, as aggravating
“… They may get off with five to ten. That is because they will take no criminal record into jail with them. I will be used, of course. The judge will give me the book – the heavy one, the one they sabe for three- and four-time losers.” [21]
Reprimanding a defendant for his or her poor comment
“Mr. Kerrivan”, said the judge, “the proper attitude for a judge when he overhears an accused person making a derogatory comment is to pretend he did noy hear. I am pretending I did not hear you. Don’t push you luck, boy, …” [2]
Litigation, lessons in
Control of one's faculties
“… the young lawyer, who was from Toronto and who was quick in both mind and tongue but rarely in control of his arrogance.” [2]
Cross-examination
Bearbaiting police
“… he had seen him before, in Toronto, playing to the gallery's, bearbaiting the cops…” [2]
Discontinued by the judge
Justified, as it turned out, by the fact that the Court accepted the anticipated submissions of defence as disclosed by cross-examination during the voir dire. [2] Judge invited defence to sit and to not ask any more questions or to make submissions. Among the observations made by the court was that “tactics you might wonder at … so lacking in fairness… those who purport to enforce our laws … he has involved himself in a flagrant intrusion upon individual rights.” [2]
Possibilities
“… All I could say in court is, sure, it’s possible. But what isn’t? ...” [34]
Fact finding
Potential witness acknowledges that he would be in a poor position to describe fully the brawl as he “… do not see it all, anyway, because I am no innocent bystander.” [3] Later, a different person stated: “I think I may have started it, I’m not sure.” [3]
Guarantee future conduct of clients
One ought never to imitate the words spoken by defence counsel: “… I will give you my personal guarantee that these boys are going straight from now on.” [3]
Judge allowing witness to make a speech
We read in Chapter 2 of a scene in which the police inspector wishes to “… say something about that”, to elaborate upon a question when he could simply have pursued his reply as he is not required to reply by a yes or no response. When defence counsel retorts that “I am sure you would, but right now you’re answering my questions”, signaling to the Crown and Court that this area might be fruitful re-examination, the judge intervened and stated that he would like to hear what the officer has to say. Predictably counsel for the defence stated: “He’s here to answer my questions, sir, not the court’s. With respect.” When the Court insisted, counsel stated: “This is an adversary system, Your Honour, and although traditions of justice seem a little out of place here, it is customary that the prosecutor, not the court, plays adversary to the defense.” The Court ruled that the Crown was not vitally interested, spurring the Crown to suggest that the officer elaborate, and the Court insisted on a response from the officer as to his further knowledge and elaboration. At the end of the day, the Inspector stated that he offered immunity from prosecution for a detailed statement and full cooperation, than charged the two accused as he judged the cooperation inadequate. Of course, the 1981 statement was ruled the fruit of an inducement. [2]
Judge, know thy judge
“The judge was an old Newfoundland, resentful of non Islanders, a fact that the police officer, a mainlander, kept well in mind. The locals claimed as well that the judge had a bent and unpredictable mind.” [2]
Mistakes, learn from the errors of others
The cocky lawyers tells his would-be clients: “I’ve seen them all. All the scams, the crackpot schemes, all the dumb deals. I have seen guys busted in every loony way possible. I am in a business where you see the mistakes people make. [9]
No mens rea defence
The crooked lawyer is explaining to his clients how to smuggle and invoke this defence if contraband is found: “… No customs agent is going to hire a crane to pull off the scrap [metal on top of unlawful goods in hold of ship] and look underneath. And if he does, so what? You don’t have to know it was there. You just say to customs, ‘Looks lie somebody’s been playing me for a sucker.’ You can’t convict a guy if he doesn’t know he’s carrying contraband. That’s the law.” [9] NB: Review Marshall case
Play to the gallery
“… he had seen him before, in Toronto, playing to the gallery's, bearbaiting the cops…” [2]
Politeness
“We may be lacking in wit and subtlety of mine in this port, simple part of the world. We may lack in great learning when it comes to the law. But Mr. Pettigrew, we do try to be polite.” [Emphasis added] [2]
Repetition, to be avoided
“… And if you can avoid the tedium of repetition, please do that as well.” [2]
Strategy – keep it simple
“The best strategies are the simplest strategies. He had always believed that…” [50]
The laws delays
The author’s note explaining the inspiration for the masterless men includes a comment that the original Peter caravan saw four of his men captured taken on board in English frigates quickly tried and quickly hanged.
Usual submission
Chapter 45 includes a totally inexperience judge telling both counsel during a pre-trial that he has no idea what the usual submission might be. At the last line of that chapter, the Court imposes a life term though the Crown sought a fixed term of 15 years.
Whiskey on his breath third-story walk-up legal aod lawyer
This not flattering description is found in Chapter 9.
Policing
Introduction: Policeman's lot is not a happy one
“… this was just another confrontation in a 20-year career of coming under fire in the courtroom [as a police officer]”. [2]
Confession – voluntary
In Chapter 9, Kerrivan wishes to accept responsibility for the drugs a woman he is infatuated with dropped and tells the police: “I dropped it. It’s mine, I own it. I am in sole possession, and this is a voluntary confession just so you won’t have to beat me.” But, when the police ask what the substance is, to establish mean rea, he says: “Talcum powder for my ass.”
Confidential informants are at great risk
“… if an informer’s cover is blown, he gets blown. Blown right away.
Rats are marked men in the narcotics industry. Targets…”
Conflict of interest
Refer below to the rubric, “Eagerness to settle issues, nit to demonstrate too strong an”.
Convictions, not all trials end with
“The nature of the business is that sometimes they don’t convict.” [4]
Detective work versus scientific work
It is said at chapter 11 of Sergeant O’Doull, who has a Ph.D. in Electronic Engineering: “… you make a good scientist. You make a lousy detective.” We learn at Chapter 25 that he “… was acting out a fantasy when he became a cop.” Later, at chapter 25, we read: “You are not going to play Sherlock Holmes, Theo.”
Eagerness to settle issues, nit to demonstrate too strong an
This is demonstrated in Chapter 44 during plea bargaining including the phrase: “[Defence counsel] should not have expressed an interest in [one precise client] so early.” It is made more complicated if you defend the interests of multiple clients in one prosecution. For example, the lawyer agreed that two of his male clients should serve twice the jail term first discussed if the female avoided prosecution, and they did not instruct him to act in that fashion, blatantly against their interests,
Enterprise
“… Another might say that you were exhibiting a rare quality in police officers. Enterprise.” [38]
Improper police behaviour in a pre-Charter age
We read in Chapter 38: “Does improper police behaviour justify excusing the importation of nearly a third of a billion dollars’ worth of illicit narcotics?”
Intelligence
“Kerrivan doesn’t own a car. He takes taxis” Said by he RCMP Inspector when talk is advanced of bugging his private vehicle. [8]
Interrogations too lengthy
In this pre-Charter scenario, we read “… [the investigator] had won the day, arresting Kelly at him home, then working on him during the two tiring twelve-hour sessions in a small room. Not once had [the investigator] raised his voice or his hand. He had employed all the techniques of a skilled and trained interrogator.” [2] Recall my Salhany book review - cite Simenon
Investigate all possibilities
“I talk to the state attorney, and he tells me the police, as he puts it, ‘don’t have the time to investigate variables other than the scenario that commends itself to obvious reason’…” [26]
Leniency the prerogative of the Courts, not of the prosecution
This is what the Crown suggests is the state of the law, in Chapter 45.
Media comment
“… If this is justice, you can shove it up your ass. The law, the lawyers, the judge, you can shove the whole thing up your little red rosy.” [3] Chapter 5 quotes: “Shove Law, Shove Judges, Says RCMP Inspector…”
Mounties, reputation of
“The Mounties always get their man.” [22]
Notes
“… [O’Doull] knew he should be making notes, but there would be time later to get a statement …” [30] This was an investigation in 1980 and thus before the Charter and before the Stinchcombe case of the Supreme Court of Canada mandated full disclosure of all information. The next page at Chapter 30 illustrates the danger of not making immediate notes: “O’Doull tried to remember. Had he asked about a male person? …”
Pre-Charter police tactics
Female detective from DEA had sex with a member of the RCMP to gain information on him as suspected of being on “the take.” The charge of corruption justified this extreme tactic. [23]
Pride in police force
This pride is being exploited in Chapter 38 to convince a police officer to not divulge police misconduct to avoid a scandal.
Record of the interview
“… You told Kelly that if he did not assist you [in locating the contraband] he would be, quote, stamping out license plates for the rest of his life.” “Something like that.” [2] Today, there is no room for any quotes that are not fully recorded. Of interest, later, the Inspector stated: “… I was too honest in court. I did not have to say I promised [the accused] a damn thing. There was nothing in writing. I got nailed because I was too honest in there …”. [4]
A complication that is easily avoided in cases in which all is recorded is illustrated in Chapter 20: The R.C.M.P. suggest to a witness: “I believe you made a phone call to the lobby reporting the deaths.” She shook her head. A further comment follows: “I think you were in the room when they died.” The author then wrote: “This time there was no reaction.” It is imperative to record the negative shaking of the head!
Red tape
“… He went along with it all the way. A lot of cops wouldn’t. They like to tie you up with routines. Safe, unimaginative, no room for initiative. I spend half my time fighting my way out of the red tape the snivel servants use to tie up private policing agencies.” [26] Later, Mr. Deverell wrote: “… If you have got some theory, you should talk to Detective Brathwaite [of the Miami Police homicide Group]. The answer from Sergeant O’Doull of the R.C.M.P. was: “I don’t think he is interested in theories. They clutter up his simple case.” [27] Indeed, we later read: “… Don’t give me theories. We’ve got a reputation for unsolved crimes around here we’d like to ignore. This one is solved. Don’t try to add to the list. … Don’t give me complex theories, O’Doull. It always turns out the right one is the logical one, which was the obvious one all along …”
Staking out a lawyer’s office
The police do not seem to have committed any wrongdoing by waiting outside of a lawyer’s officer with the hope that a client who is wanted on a warrant appears. [42]
Statements written by police
We read in Chapter 31: “Okay, folks. I’m going to write out a couple of statements now, and you are going to sign them.” Perhaps the correct procedure ought to have been communicated as follows: “Okay, folks. I’m going to write out a couple of statements now, and you are going to sign them after reading them carefully, and bringing to my attention any errors or omissions.”
Tailing
“In trying to determine if they were the subject of surveillance, the suspects discussed the persons in the bar and one stated: “No, he’s been looking at us. A tail would be pretending he doesn’t notice us.” Ergo, look at your targets! [10]
Stereotypical murderers
“The murderer is always the person you don’t want to be the murderer …” [27] [Emphasis in original]
Testifying in easily understood words
“… often he would be sent to testify – trying to assemble the answer to a lawyer’s fumbling question in easily understandable words …” [24]
Warning to suspect, before Charter
We read at Chapter 52: “Is it in the life jackets?”, O’Doull asked. “Oh, don’t answer yet. It is my duty to warn you that you need not say anything, but anything you do say may be used as evidence in your trial. Now you can answer. Is the coke in the life jackets?” Perhaps that is why the Charter was introduced including a duty to advise that a lawyer is available to provide advice before a question is put seconds after the right to silence is set out in rapid-fire recitation.
Wit
[Inspector] Mitchell wished he were not lacking in the light, self-effacing wit that the occasion seemed to demand. Instead, to his discomfort, he found himself carrying on in ponderous police fashion.” [2]
Conclusion
One of the conspirators who escaped prosecution by fleeing Canada is writing about the case and suggests: “I know writers are poorly paid. …” [52] I do not know if that is true but I am quite grateful that the prospect of little by way of gain did not deter Mr. Deverell from taking up his pen as a full-time vocation. His work has been translated into fourteen languages and is sold worldwide and I, for one, am quite grateful for both the knowledge of human nature I gained from his during 28 years as a judge and for the countless hours of laugh out loud entertainment his books have provided me.
[1] McClelland & Stewart, 1981, Toronto. I have written an earlier book review in respect to the title, Sing a Worried Song, by Mr. Deverell, posted in Mack’s Criminal Law blog – May 27, 2015. Note as well a recent review” “Police Investigations 101: Lessons for Prosecutors from William Deverell’s Kill All the Lawyers, Mack’s Criminal Law Blog, February 22, 2026.
[2] See "A List of One Hundred Legal Novel" (1922), 17 III. L. Rev. 26, at p. 31.
[3] Refer as well to a similar article by Law Professor W.H. Hitchler who published these relevant remarks in "The Reading of Lawyers", (1928) 33 Dick. L. Rev. 1-13, at pp. 12-13: "The Lawyers must know human nature. [They] must deal with types. [They] cannot find all them around... Life is not long enough. The range of [their] acquaintances is not broad enough. For this learning, they must go to fiction. ...” Refer to my text, Advocacy: A Lawyers’ Playbook, Thomson/Carswell, 2006, Toronto, at pages 14-23.
[4] Demeanour Evidence on Trial: A Legal and Literary Criticism, Sandstone Academic Press, Melbourne, Australia, 2008; “Evidence of Demeanour: Some Instruction Found in the Early Works of Georges Simenon”, (Winter 1998), 21(4) Prov. Judges J. 5-23. [http://www.trussel.com/maig/demeanour.htm]; “Demeanour Evidence: Guidance from the Tax Court of Canada”, Alan D. Gold Collection of Criminal Law Articles, ADGN/RP-294, May 4, 2020, and “Demeanour Evidence and ‘Eyelid Turns’: Guidance from the Manitoba Court of Appeal and Anthony Trollope”, Alan D. Gold Collection of Criminal Law Articles, ADGN/RP-293, April 27, 2020.
[5] All references are to the chapters as the bok has been reprinted since by ECW Press, Toronto.