Police Investigations 101

Book Review of William Deverell’s Kill All the Judges[1]

Gilles Renaud | Ontario Court of Justice (1995-2023) 

Introduction

William Deverell’s signal career at the Criminal Bar saw him prosecute and defend a great number of prominent cases[2] but his success as a litigator is now obscured by his fame as a writer.  Writing dozens of highly acclaimed legal novels will do that for your reputation!  If you have not had the pleasure of reading one of his books, please go to the library, the bookstore or one of those computer sites that permits you to have a title delivered overnight. Indeed, anyone wishing to enjoy an otherwise dull flight, or train trip or long wait somewhere, should obtain any of his books and read for hours of pleasure. Moreover, if you are a litigation lawyer, I suggest that you keep a pencil handy, as I do, and underline every useful illustration of trial tactics, cross-examination, and instruction on human nature on display, not to overlook guidance as to the means of “judging judges, defence colleagues and police officers” that his writings provide in abundance.

In recent decades, his courtrooms battles draw attention to the exploits of Arthur Ramsgate Beauchamp[3], Q.C. and Kill All the Judges focuses on the return to the Defence Bar of this beloved litigator, after he agrees to return to practice and to temporarily abandon retirement, to defend a man charged with murdering a High Court Judge. As always, if there is a belief that the wrong man was charged, prosecutors and police officers will benefit greatly from studying how this potential miscarriage of justice was brought about and avoided.

For those who wish to enjoy the fruits of Mr. Deverell’s literary labours, so to speak, without reading this book, I offer a thematic review of his instruction on litigating criminal trials and so much more in the nature of human foibles. In brief, Kill All the Judges is a highly entertaining and yet sobering at times explanation of our criminal justice system.[4]

Discussion

Coincidence – any role in the Court’s reasoning?

We read at page 105: “She could be lying, but [Arthur] thought not. Maybe she hadn’t lured him here after all. One of life’s coincidences. They happen…” People are entitled to reason as they wish respecting the “why’s” and “why not’s” of their personal relationships, as there is no harm in that, but in the context of a criminal trial, police officers ought not to be allowed to speculate in this fashion.  Any thought they express must be logical and not allowed to rest upon so porous a foundation as coincidence.  If the information put forward by a complainant appears to rest upon deceit, as quoted above, then that is the conclusion to be reached, not that it might be correct no matter how improbable the basis for the belief. A signal example is the officer who, when asked what a couple may have done during a period of hours in a bedroom, responded: “I am not able to answer that, sir.”  The prosecutor is always better off with such a reply than one that is later eviscerated in cross-examination as being without foundation. 

Conclusions that are flawed in respect to criminal defendant who is presumed not guilty

I question the type of discussion found at page 102 to the effect that “… We presume he went for a swim and a steam.” “With Florenza?” “Maybe. No proof…” Indeed, the only scientific and rigorous response must be “No, as we have no proof.  It is only speculative to suggest that may have happened and for a jury to hear speculative information is highly prejudicial.  Consider also what the author set out at page 169: “… wildly propounding, shadowy conjectures without a kernel of proof …” Always seek proof, not opinion as to its existence.

Courage when seeking to dissuade the trial judge from a course of conduct

This is illustrated at page 193 when Arthur Beauchamp rises to object to the trial judge’s decision, reached without seeking submissions, to order the defendant to be jailed during the trial and thus to cancel his release order.  The lawyer is resolute in not only ensuring that he be heard on this point, but he points out immediately the principled and correct support of the prosecution on this subject, in the circumstances.

Cross-examination – Testing the story to see if it holds up

This is what is suggested at page 178. Of course, a carefully prepared cross-examination not only seeks to impeach but to demonstrate the wisdom of certain elements of the defence case, or of the prosecution’s theory, as the case may be.

Defence work is degrading in the eyes of some…

A.R. Beauchamp’s former senior partner is quite pleased to discover that the decision to return to the Bar by Beauchamp to defend the person accused of murder in so high-profile a case will not require Beauchamp to sit in his former office or even to be seen near his former Chambers, thus averting the criminal classes from casting a dark shadow over the work of the other lawyers and of their clients as they consult their Barrister, sit in the reception area and use the restrooms presumably… As we read at page 188, “I can’t imagine we’d want to be associated with this dismal business…”

Delayed prosecutions may assist the Crown?

Many persons counting on great experience swear to the belief that delay never helps the Crown’s case as memories fade and persons lose their interest in assisting the State, etc. Of interest, however, Deverell has his main character proclaim the opposite belief: “After a long delay, witnesses tend to reconstruct memories. Such changes cement. Eyesight improves.” 

Demeanour evidence

The litigator that his readers love, “A.R.B. Q.C.”, expresses this thought at page 193: “One must rely on a talent to read faces and body language [when picking a jury]. As they stepped up in turn, Arthur sought eye contact – long experience had taught him to read intelligence in eyes, empathy in smiles. He let go those with frown and worry lines, and a few who might lack strength to endure a fractious jury room.”

A telling example of this kind of evidence is seen at page 137: “A false face showed, a too-wide smile, a too-loud laugh, rapt attention to the bon mots of bores.” See, out of so many examples from Shakespeare, these two illustrations: “Pericles. … Her face the book of praises, where is read
Nothing but … [1-i]” "False face must hide what the false heart doth know" and “Macbeth … False face must hide what false heart doth know. [1-vii]”

Regarding blushing, we read: “… if her blush meant anything, she was hedging…” See page 202.  As counsel pressed, the blush broadened.  Finally, note the first reference to demeanour, at page 5, that makes plain the strain that jury works bring about for the “twelve”: “They came back twice seeking clarification, strain on every face, cold determination on the foreman’s…”

Detective stories: Do criminal prosecutors and defence counsel profit from reading such stories?

Mr. Deverell wrote at page 14 of Kill All the Lawyers that defence lawyers might well have shelves bulging with detective stories. Page 186 of Kill All the Judges sets out the following contents of the litigator for the defendant: “… Here was a collection of paperback mysteries …” There are no disadvantages and many benefits to reading the interesting titles featuring fictional detectives so long as they teach you some lessons about human nature and basic psychology.  As Dean John Wigmore wrote: "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.” Refer to “A List of One Hundred Legal Novels" (1922), 17 III. L. Rev. 26, at p. 31.  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. ...” 

All that said, note that page 271 reminds us that in detective stories, “… the perp is always the one you least suspect.”

Do as I say not do as I did

The great Arthur Beauchamp is mindful of the hypocrisy of his actions in pointing out to his grandson examples of drunken derelicts, in the hope of inspiring the young man to avoid excess in terms of substance abuse, though he was a denizen of skid row for years… See page 109.  Perhaps the lesson would have been better received had he been honest about the time he lost his balance next to the jury box and fell into the laps of the 12 good women and men? 

Drinking and driving

The Defence Bar must be aware of examples such as found at page 108: “… Somehow, despite having got awe-inspiringly drunk, he’d had the sense not to drive.”  It is only fair that prosecutors might cite this example.

Evasion – judged by the pauses and time taken to respond

In this context, there is a world of difference between the time it takes the police to respond to questions in the courtroom, given their training and their experience in Court, and what time is required for the lay person to respond to questions.  The Court is a strange plave for most anyone, which is why judges often make allowances for the nervousness of rookie police witnesses, and rightly so.  Mr. Deverell contributes to this debate at page 105 by reminding us that some persons do seek to take advantage of their hesitations to craft a lie: “… He struggled to invent a plausible lie. …” during the pause he was allowing himself.  Later on the same page we read of a long pause and the fact that it might be followed by some more elaborate but equally mendacious reply, or a confession that what was said earlier was a fabrication and what follows will be the truth. 

Note also the reference at page 171 to “… Silent Shwan [who] was an odd duck among counsel, one who thought long and carefully before he spoke …” Witnesses may act in the same way. Finally, page 214 includes these words: “A pause to shake a hand or two, affording him a chance to devise an answer.”  

In this context, one ought to consider the amusing and perhaps apocryphal account involving baseball player Rudy York. When dragged out of a hotel room in which his bed was on fire, he was accused of falling asleep whilst smoking to which he responded immediately: “B.S. The bed was already on fire when I put my head down to sleep!”  On the one hand, there was no time to think on the evasion analysis; on the other, no right-thinking person would credit the reply. Interested readers ought to review the fascinating review about fact finding and testimony by “ordinary” witnesses found in the Criminal Reports. See “The ‘Average, Nervous, Inadequate, Inarticulate, In short, Typical’ Accused’s Defence”, in (1993) 22 CR (4th) 253, by Alan D. Gold and the follow-up contribution: “Typo does not Change Anything”, (1994) 24 CR (4th) 397, also by Mr. Gold. A further quite useful and still relevant article is that of Mr. Michael Plaxton, “Credibility, Belief, and the W. (D.) Direction: Some Thoughts in Light of Y. (C.L.)”, (2008), 53 CR (4th) 219.

Failing to plan might lead to a plan to fail…

This well-known belief is illustrated in a backhand way at page 223. The young junior, Chance, had compiled sixty legal-size pages of notes for his cross of the pathologist … He’ll prove … well, he is not sure what he wants to prove …” Counsel needs to examine all the information to be able to frame a suitable line of impeachment, and it is difficult to know in advance what is deficient in the information of the Crown.  You must re-think and re-examine…

Fear of courts, of judges, lawyers and authority figures

One must never overlook the real possibility that certain individuals who might be witnesses and certainly defendants have experienced traumatic encounters with authority figures previously, perhaps in their home countries, and that one cannot fail to consider how to protect them from trauma and to ensure their testimony is not marred by anxiety that might otherwise be controlled.  See page 277 for an example.

Identification evidence case

I noted with interest that counsel suggested to their client not to wear a remarkable medallion at trial as “Witnesses are going to be identifying you, there’s no point in helping them. No suspenders either.” See page 180. Refer as well to page 200 wherein we read of the defendant’s bent nose, described as “a kind of give-away”. 

Instinct versus careful preparation

Mr. Deverell illustrates at page 144 that careful trial preparation includes leaving open the possibility of setting aside your “game plan” and turning to instinct, well served by experience. Of course, if you have little experience, you may find this a daunting exercise.  Regarding experience, I am always reminded of the lawyer called in 1983 who represented the babysitter in the Timmins case of 1989-1990 that was reviewed by Justice of Appeal Goudge during the Inquiry on Pediatric Forensic Pathology in Ontario. One of the recommendations was that only senior counsel accept such briefs and this would have disqualified that litigator from the role he discharged. There is something to be said about youthful enthusiasm!

In addition, one notes at page 237 that Arthur preferred proof over gut sense but he would explore certain questions if there was no harm to his defence. 

Jokes by your witnesses, if you prosecute, are rarely welcome

In 1995, when I was sworn in during what I thought was a solemn ceremony, I was advised to ensure that no levity creep into the trials I would preside over and to avoid any attempt at humour myself, though anything I said would draw a laugh, given the wish shared by all lawyers, participants and staff to make me think highly of my talent in this regard.  In this vein, page 193 demonstrates an attempt at humour by the defendant that results in a harsh look by the presiding judge.  Thus, the lesson to clients is to avoid humour at all costs.  That said, earlier at page 23, we read of a defendant who pleased guilty to simple possession of 455 pounds who told the judge who remonstrated with him that he would have needed several lifetimes to consume this amount: “Aye, but I was going to give it a might try.”

Know thy judge!

The first commandment of litigation, for either side in criminal law, is to find out as much information as possible on the judge.  As we read, “Tell me about the judge I got. This Kroop character. I hear he is [not a kind thing to repeat follows]” See page 180.

Maligning the dead is rarely a sound tactic

This is the advice put forward by Mr. Deverell at page 171: “… Maligning the dead is generally a bad practice, and when neither admissible nor provable can boomerang.” 

Media management

I was never asked a question by a member of the media in my defence years so I have never really considered how defence counsel ought to address such matters and I think I am fairly conservative in recommending avoiding trying your cases in the Court of public opinion.  That being said, many of my peers would strongly commend Beauchamp when he is asked by a journalist if the trial holds surprises and retorts: “The surprise is that this flimsy case is even going to trial.”  See page 189. Later, at page 190, he states of his surprising decision to return to the Bar: “Had no alternative. I could not stand by and watch an innocent man being railroaded.” 

Memories improve with time?

Refer to the rubric “Delayed prosecutions may assist the Crown?”  In any event, page 263 includes an example of our great litigator “digging into his memory”, which seems to be a faculty we possess judging by how often we hear it, but Dr. Elizabeth Loftus might well disagree, beyond the application of concentration to focus one’s thoughts. 

Objections may be seen as “guilt producing”

Consider this comment found at page 203: “… Most lawyers would have objected.” To which Arthur responded: “Signals the jury there is something to hide…”

“Omerta” as a way of life in certain close-knit areas

Mr. Deverill suggests that this is the attitude adopted by the people living on Garibaldi Island, at page 20: “… considered dishonourable to rat on a neighbour”. 

“One question too many” rule

For dramatic purposes, one suspects, Mr. Deverell had his great advocate breach this rule, as made plain at pages 207-209.  After all, no one is perfect.

Personal knowledge of counsel as basis for cross-examination

Consider this cogent example consigned at page 206: “Ever felt the need to relieve yourself in a hurry, Mr. Whitson?” “Of course.”  “Mr. Brown lives in a rural area. So do I. We pee outside. You’ve done it yourself, I’d imagine.” 

Proof to verify your client’s assertions must be examined with care

Page 135 provides the illustration of a “client” setting out that the vehicle he was operating had not left their little island until Beauchamp examines the ferry ticket demonstrating the vehicle having left for the B.C. mainland for a week. 

Punishment, the evolution of means of deterring wrongful conduct

The author points out at page 132 that requiring a wayward youth to read Dickens might be an ideal penalty, but not by means of the Internet or a screen.  Of course, that is a suggestion by a grandfather who asked at page 134 for the meaning of the word “blogger”.

Secrets

We read at page 174 that “No one is without secrets, Mr. Beauchamp.”

S.O.D.D.I.

I recall well learning this expression, “Some Other Dude Did It!”, from my late friend Henry Burr who explained that it was common in the courts of Los Angeles when he began his career as an Assistant District Attorney. In this context, the author has Arthur express to his junior that he “… would prefer to prove someone else did it …” From my perspective, I prefer to state that the defence ought to concentrate on merely raising a reasonable doubt at the end of the day.

Time that is needed to prepare versus that which is wasted on clients

All lawyers will face the thorny issue of difficult clients who are very demanding of their representative’s time, to a degree that is disproportionate in terms of the proper balance between trial preparation and assisting the client to navigate the shoals of the trial.  As we read at page 114: “He is a client very demanding of a lawyer’s time.”  My Clinical Law Course lecturer at Ottawa U., the kind and capable counsel C.B. Sproule Q.C., was fond of saying that the lawyer who fails to control his client fails to control their career and fees account book.  Note also the reference at page 190 to a “time-waster” with reference to a journalist.

Traditions ahead of trial

Arthur Ramsgate Beauchamp Q.C. always has a pre-trial haircut with his coiffeur Roberto, as we read at page 197. Whatever tradition gives you a genuine belief in your greatness as the counsel for the defendant, you ought to pursue it. In this case, page 188 describes the transformation of Beauchamp from a doddering yokel to the lion of the courtroom.

Transforming your client, to their peril

Arthur Beauchamp stated to his junior who wondered how they can “clean-up” their client’s looks: “… Let the jury see him in the raw. He’ll come off worse if we pretend he’s anything else.”  See page 203.

Trial judge’s interventions

There were a few and Arthur Beauchamp was quite able in dealing with them. The first is found at page 201.  When the defence was asking about some under-the-table “footsying”, the judge stated: “Mr. Beauchamp, nothing has been heard that even remotely supports this …” To which our great litigator responded: “The trial is young, milord.”  The second is at page 204: When the Court referenced “scene of the crime…” counsel immediately retorted: “Alleged crime, milord. It could have been suicide.”  A third illustration is drawn from page 207: “Mr. Beauchamp, is this really necessary?” “For every question, there is a reason, milord.” 

Trial preparation

Hiding in a phoneless law library is recommended at page 114 in terms of a novel published in 2008.  I can only repeat that trial preparation is essential and doing so in a calm atmosphere is heaven to my mind.  That said, the second part of the book starting at page 165 repeats and reinforces the opinion that too little time to prepare is quite dangerous in litigation. However one achieves this objective, what counsel wish to hear echoes what the author wrote of the young lawyer: “Wentworth had done his homework.”

Undertakings reduced to writing

There is nothing improper or insulting in requesting, As did Athur Beauchamp at page 158, that all undertakings offered by other counsel or agencies be reduced to writing.  The expression in French, “Les bons papiers font de bons amis » merely repeats the wisdom that without a paper-based agreement, there is room for disagreement leading perhaps to enmity. Note also what the author wrote at page 169 in a slightly different context: “… Nullius in verba, Horace counselled – rely on the words of no one.” 

Vocabulary

Always eschew multisyllabic words if possible.  Thus, do not resort to words as just selected by the writer and words such as “dotage, fustian and discursive” that follow each other at page 260. 

Witness preparation – style of speech

When I practiced in Northern Ontario, I had many delightful meetings with clients in which I insisted that swearing during testimony was a bad idea, which led to a few accusations of attempting to deceive the jury… though I never had the scenario of the fellow from “Trailer Park Boys” who wished to both curse and smoke whilst testifying.  In this vein, note page 111: “Felicity had an uncommon speech … she talked like a greeting card …” My advice is to not put handcuffs on your client and witnesses as they may end up so tongue-tied trying to follow your directions about this and that thing to avoid that they will appear insincere… I recall telling witnesses on the rare occasion it seemed desirable to ignore the direction they just heard from Crown counsel about not repeating hearsay to merely testify about their understanding, and to not filter things out as there is no jury in the Ontario Court of Justice.  I might have been wrong in law but not in my attempt to achieve justice.

Work hard

Deverell reminds us at page 238 that “A little hard work never hurt anyone …”

Conclusion

Mr. Deverell’s book, Kill All the Judges, is hugely entertaining for the general public. For the members of the Prosecutor’s Bar, it illustrate how tunnel vision, a winning attitude above all, etc., may poison the well; respecting defence counsel, for whom the consequences of a trial are “grave”, as we read at page 189, it provides relief from the worries of the office and several valuable tips in conducting the vital work you carry out in the name of Justice.  

[1]        McClelland & Stewart, Toronto, 2008.

[2]           A few of his reported cases include R. v. Heppner, [1975] B.C.J. No. 1039, 28 C.C.C. (2d) 23 (C.A.), R. v. Barnier, [1977] B.C.J. No. 1160, 37 C.C.C. (2d) 508 (C.A.), R. v. Rivera, [1974] B.C.J. No. 879, 22 C.C.C. (2d) 105 (C.A.) and R. v. Handy, [1978] B.C.J. No. 1138, 45 C.C.C. (2d) 232 (C.A.). The list is quite impressive.

[3]        Pronounced “Beech’m”, à l’anglaise.

[4]        A recent book review of Mr. Deverell’s no less entertaining and illuminating courtroom drama, Kill All the Lawyers, appeared on Mack’s Criminal Law site on February 18, 2026.  I wrote 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 ( http://dallas-mack-4x7v.squarespace.com/law-blog/2015/5/27/book-review-sing-a-worried-song.