This week’s blog is by Ali Tejani, 3rdyear law student at the University of Windsor, and Research Assistant with the NSRLP.
During a re-read of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, our NSRLP Project Manager Dayna Cornwall came across a line where Hagrid is describing providing evidence during the trial of his hippogriff, Buckbeak:
‘S’all my fault. Got all tongue-tied. They was all sittin’ there in black robes an’ I kep’ droppin’ me notes and forgettin’ all them dates yeh looked up fer me, Hermione.’
Image by Anne Rempel
Shortly after this, SRL and Access Revolution blog contributor Anne Rempel sent along an image she had drawn that depicted lawyers using shield charms to keep Self-Represented Litigants at bay. At that point, we decided that someone should write a blog related to Access to Justice in the context of the Harry Potter universe.
As a Millennial (coincidentally also known as the “Harry Potter Generation”), the Harry Potter universe is near and dear to my heart. With the books, movies, and all the content since then (Pottermore, Fantastic Beasts, and a controversial play that shall not be named), this universe has been a big part of my life. And in the recent Canadian federal elections, some Harry Potter parody campaign signs popped up in Ontario.
There are many themes in the Harry Potter universe that universities could model courses on using the various intricacies of the magical world – and they have! Even some law schools are appreciating the value in analyzing questions of justice in Harry Potter. There are also numerous papers that have delved into inter-species relations, particularly as a metaphor for race relations. If you are interested in reading scholarly work on law and Harry Potter, a compendium was published by Carolina Academic Press.
In this short blog however, my focus is drawing parallels between the justice system in Harry Potter and the non-magical world. I will focus on content prior to the seventh book, which is more clearly defunct of the rule of law. However, no matter which example of wizarding justice you examine, it seems clear that the justice system is more tangled than devil’s snare.
Hagrid and Buckbeak
In Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Hagrid’s hippogriff Buckbeak injures Draco Malfoy during a lesson, as a direct result of Malfoy acting in a way he was explicitly told not to. This results in a series of trials and appeals before the Committee for the Disposal of Dangerous Creatures. Harry, Hermione, and Ron all know that Buckbeak is not to blame, and dive into assisting Hagrid with legal research, while Hagrid struggles to juggle his emotions, his gamekeeping duties, and his teaching. However, they soon learn that the Committee is not as impartial as one would hope, since Lucius Malfoy (Draco’s wealthy and prominent father) has power over the Committee. This results in the Committee sentencing Buckbeak to death, despite evidence, witness testimony, and legal precedent that all suggest the hippogriff is being wrongfully punished for a natural and known quality of his species.
There are two key points worth noting here. First, as Hagrid only too rightly explains, navigating the justice system (whether magical or not) can be a cause for much stress, and can have significant impacts on someone’s daily functioning. Citing a study from earlier this month, the Canadian Forum on Civil Justice published an article noting that money spent on justice programs has a high rate of return specifically because there are othersocial costs from the lack of Access to Justice. This is also something we have heard from SRLs time and again.
The second point is something else that we hear regularly from SRLs, and relates to the concept of insiders and outsiders. Too often when discussing access to justice, SRLs often tell us that they feel like there are two different justice systems. The Malfoy family comes from exorbitant wealth, and Lucius Malfoy is able to wield his influence in shocking ways. Too often, those who are outsiders are told that while they may be stakeholders in the justice system, their experiences and input are less valuable than those of the insiders.
Harry’s Disciplinary Hearing
In Harry Potter and the Order of The Phoenix, the Court of Law for wizards in the United Kingdom (i.e. Wizengamot) tries to prosecute Harry for the crime of performing underage magic, and Harry is initially left without any kind of representation.
While many countries, including the UK, give accused persons the right to legal representation, it appears this concept does not exist in the Harry Potter universe. Fortunately, in this situation, Professor Dumbledore arrives in time to act on Harry’s behalf. But without Dumbledore’s last-minute arrival, a teenager with little-to-no understanding of wizarding law would have been forced to defend himself.
Additionally, it seems the concept of the McKenzie Friend (i.e. a support person who sits with an SRL; see our primer here) is not something that exists in the wizarding world.
Mr. Weasley stumbled to a halt outside a grimy dark door with an immense iron lock and slumped against the wall, clutching at a stitch in his chest.
‘Go on,’ he panted, pointing his thumb at the door. ‘Get in there.’
‘Aren’t – aren’t you coming with -?’
‘No, no, I’m not allowed. Good luck!’
Another interesting parallel in this example involves scheduling and procedural fairness. Luckily, Harry has arrived at the Ministry of Magic early, and is informed by one of Arthur Weasley’s colleagues that the time and venue of the trial has been changed:
‘An urgent message came ten minutes ago… it’s the Potter boy’s hearing – they’ve changed the time and venue – it starts at eight o’clock now and it’s down in old Courtroom Ten’.
Subsequently, when Harry arrives at the courtroom, this is the first exchange that takes place:
A cold male voice rang across the courtroom.
‘You’re late.’
‘Sorry,’ said Harry nervously ‘I — I didn’t know the time had been changed.’
‘That is not the Wizengamot’s fault,’ said the voice. ‘An owl was sent to you this morning.’
As Dumbledore notes later on during the trial, “In your admirable haste to ensure that the law is upheld, you appear, inadvertently I am sure, to have overlooked a few laws yourself.” Too often, SRLs are faced with insurmountable hurdles and are treated improperly by justice officials or by lawyers on the other side. As noted in Anne’s drawing, there are tools that lawyers and justice officials use regularly to exploit SRLs who are navigating the justice system unassisted.
I wonder, for example, what would have happened if Harry had missed the hearing entirely. It strikes me this would be a similar situation to the one at the centre of the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Pintea v Johns, where NSRLP had intervener status. A dispute arose over whether the court had been informed of Mr. Pintea’s change of address partway through the proceedings. Mr. Pintea did not appear at two case conferences. He was then held in contempt, his case was struck by the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, and he was ordered to pay costs of almost $83,000. This decision was eventually overturned by the Supreme Court, and we have seen this case cited in more recent caselaw as a small victory for SRLs.
However, unlike the Pintea case, it appears that there is no further level of court to which Harry might be able to appeal the decision in his case. (Of course, if courts of appeal existed, it is also possible Sirius Black might not have been in prison for as long as he was. Though realistically, Sirius would likely have stayed in prison until a true-crime documentary popped up on Netflix.)
The last point of comparison from Harry’s hearing worth examining is Harry’s attempt to explain the circumstances that led to his use of magic. An excerpt is included below to demonstrate just how many times Harry tried to explain himself, and was subsequently interrupted:
‘You received an official warning from the Ministry for using illegal magic three years ago, did you not?’
‘Yes, but -‘
‘And yet you conjured a Patronus on the night of the second of August?’ said Fudge.
‘Yes,’ said Harry, ‘but -‘
‘Knowing that you are not permitted to use magic outside school while you are under the age of seventeen?’
‘Yes, but -‘
‘Knowing that you were in an area full of Muggles?’
‘Yes, but -‘
‘Fully aware that you were in close proximity to a Muggle at the time?’
‘Yes,’ said Harry angrily, ‘but I only used it because we were -‘
For the average member of the public, justice is about truth and fairness. However, individuals who have been forced to navigate the justice system alone often realize how elusory truth can be. The truth-finding function of the justice system is often muddled by the adversarial nature of our justice system.
Despite the deficiencies of this legal proceeding, it seems Harry got lucky when he was cleared of all charges (did someone slip him some of the lucky Felix Felicis potion before the hearing?). Unfortunately, many people who navigate our justice system everyday aren’t as lucky.
Image by Reilly Brown
Justice for Muggles
Does the Harry Potter universe have questionable methods of administering justice? Yes. Will I continue to love this series anyway? Always.
‘Are you planning to follow a career in Magical Law, Miss Granger?’ asked Scrimgeour. ‘No, I’m not,’ retorted Hermione. ‘I’m hoping to do some good in the world!’ – Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows, JK Rowling
As a law student in my final year of study, I have been reflecting more regularly on what I plan to do with my law degree. Throughout law school, and particularly through my work with the NSRLP, I have learned about the divide between the promise and the reality of Access to Justice. As in the anecdotes described here, I think the Harry Potter universe has been an inspirational source in affirming my desire to have a positive impact in the world (no matter what Hermione thinks of lawyers!). While our own justice system might be marginally better than what exists in the wizarding world, there is still much to do to ensure everyone has real Access to Justice.
Thank you I’m a SRL and victim of landlord violence including assault. I’m a disabled person and my landlord staged a home take over lasting 2+ months so he could evict me and move back into his house . I have medical cannabis approval from Health Canada and my landlord destroyed my grow room and now I don’t have access to my medicine and I’m suffering. The police didn’t intervene until I was assaulted a second time on July 31st 2019. I was wounded and maimed in both assaults and have to go for xrays My landlord breached his conditions of release 3 times and was finally jailed for a month, He was released on Sept 19th. The crown counsel’s office didn’t send me the victim impact statement and statement of restitution as per the victims of crime act. I phoned the crown’s office 6 days before the sentencing hearing and requested the statements. I received them but could not fill them out in time so they weren’t entered but I was given leave to read my v.i.s. My landlord has started eviction proceeding because I missed paying rent for a month and a half because I can’t work with my injuries. Your article provided a powerful context to describe my a2j experience. I’m forwarding everything to the Lieutenant Governor because I feel my Charter rights viz. S15 have been breached. The world need more lawyers and law students like yourself
A thought came to mind as I read the Harry Potter piece.
Every SRLP who makes submissions in the NSRLP blogs show great, if not outstanding respect for learning and applying the law.
Essentially we are “law students” albeit “self educated law students” getting our legal learning from experience, the internet,nsrlp blogging,communicating with each other etc. However, it appears that because we never attended law school or university and earned a law degree we are looked at through a derogatory lens by The Courts. That is at the root of the animus we are subjected to by most (not all) judges we go before. In other words there is a narrow mindedness by judges who are fundamentally “lawyers” in gowns that because we never travelled on their path of legal learning
we are sub-standard or “the scourge of the legal system” in their exclusive club or arena.
Maybe those particular judges ought to read some books on “self made men” or “self made women” that had no formal education who changed the world we live in today. Andrew Carnegie comes to mind who self educated himself by reading borrowed books that his mother gave him, I am sure U.S Steel wouldn’t have been the success it was but for this rag tag poverty stricken self educated immigrant boy. Carnegie was responsible for starting “public libraries” as he felt no person should be deprived of access to learning because they were poor.
That’s analogous to us “self represented litigants” or as CJ Rooke dubbed us “the scourge of the legal system”
Alex, this is why I was shocked at the failure of attempts to form a group of SRLs to make our voices louder. The first order of business for such a group would have to be SOUND action to remove anyone who sees us as “scourge of the justice system”. In about a week from now my time constraints should be lessened so I can spare more time to this cause. My last two forages in court have been largely good but that is not how it all started. Bottom-line though as far as I am concerned no one calling us scourge” and making such rants as Mead v Mead and the other more recent one should be in such a position in OUR courts. I know we have the wherewithal to REMOVE them! Let’s do it
Allen. If you read an article by David danielson llp on charter violation. Vancouver sun nov 18. I believe this applies to us. The self represented who the judiciary are violating regularly and have stated their intent to rid themselves of us. This may work as the bases of a class action.
On second thoughts, what do we “selfrepresented litigants” have to complain about we have our own exclusivity prescribed in the “JUDICATURE ACT OF ALBERTA” it’s a permanent reservation of “vexatious litigant” no lawyers allowed! (tongue in cheek).
You are a beacon of hope to SRL’s Ali! 👍
Here’s hoping the real world doesn’t churn you up into mincemeat. I too had the same hopes of doing the same good work in nursing. But instead I was chewed up, thrashed not once but 11 times, and then left for dead, stomped on by lawyers who were staunchly defending their government clients no matter what the outcome to my lawyer-less and unchampioned ethics. Keep going, hold your head high, and keep your guard up no matter how sincere they might seem. They always hold a knife in the other hand, behind their back. Dr. Lorelei Rogers EdD Board Certified Advanced Practice Holistic Nurse- Forced Retirement
I find it interesting that Pintea v. Johns is repeatedly raised as some sort of SRL victory and a benchmark of precedent usage when the jurisdiction of Alberta that created and caused the Pintea case is rarely addressed. Skirting around the “collective revenge” of an existential judicial club of judges in Alberta towards any SRL who dares to use the SCC endorsement before the very judges who were responsible, and there juducial pals for the causation in revealing the CJC “Statement of Principles” that was supposed to help SRLS only make things worse for SRL’S. I have personal experience and a preponderance that bringing up Pintea with reference to the “Statement of Principles” before these particular judgez only angers Alberta Judges and have the reverse effect of what the SCC endorsement was supposed to do!
I went before the actual Alberta Court of Appeal judges that initiated the Pintea v. Johns result and I was treated with incivility for raising it and asking for the help pronounced in the SCC endorsement.
Their response was appalling, abusive and felt waves of hate towards me for daring to raise it.
That’s what “access to justice” in Alberta looks like folks!
It’s analagous to proving someone wrong who do not have the bottle and accountability to admit they were wrong. Donald Trump comes to mind as I express that last analogy. I here a lot about Ontario judges in the NSRLP blogs, which is natural, being that the NSRLP is located in Ontario. Alberta needs more scrutiny, edpecially in the liberal use of “vexatious litigant” doctrine to quash SRL’S into oblivion. FYI, this is where the origin of “self represented” litigants were the “scourge of the legal system” was declared.
Hello Alex, it’s interesting you bring this up – we are intervening in an Alberta Court of Appeals case on vexatiousness in January. We will of course be writing about this in the coming months – stay tuned.
Thanks for your response and I will of course stay tuned. Forgive me for mispelling some words in my post such as “there” when it ought to have said “their” and “judgez” when it ought to have said “judges”. I hold myself to a high standard of articulation and I hate careless mistskes. That aside, It is good to hear that the Alberta judiciary is being looked at by the NSRLP team. It is a sub-standard judiciary that rule by intimidation, incivility and abuse of power when dealing with SRL’S.
Thanks again
Subject: CONSTITUTIONALITY OF “THE JUDICATURE ACT” Section 23 (1)
“(4) The Court may at any time on application or on its own motion, with notice to the Minister of Justice and Solicitor General make an order under subsection (1) applicable to any other individual or entity specified by the Court who in the opinion of the Court is associated with the person whom an order (1) is made”
Question 1: When has The Minister or their counsel ever appeared in Court when a self rep. has been declared a “vexatious litigant?”
Question 2: Should the party to whom is being declared “vexatious” not be served a copy of the Court’s own Motions to the Ministers?
Sec 24(4) The Attorney General of Canada and the Minister of Justice and Solicitor General of Alberta are entitled as of right to be heard, either in person or by counsel, notwithstanding that the Crown is not a party to the proceeding.
Next question:
Is the JUDICATURE ACT in contradiction to;
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Section15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age,or mental or physical disability.
(2) subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity thas has its object ‘the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups…’
Question 2: Are SRL’S a “disadvantaged group”
It also states in the JUDICATURE ACT at para (5) that any member of the Law Society cannot be declared “vexatious”, is that not the definition of “discrimination” as stated in the Charter?
Last question: Would the violation of every SRL who has been declared a “vexatious litigant” by the application of the JUDICATURE ACT sec. 23 (1) and 24 vs The Charter of Rights and Freedoms be grounds for a class action law suit by some lawyer representing the SRL class so big that it would make the Omar Khadr settlement look like chump change? Just saying!
In the final analysis, the JUDICATURE ACT section 23(1) was set up as a mechanism specifically targeting Self Represented Litigants [SRL’S] as 23 (5) states the following: “an order under subsection (1) or (4) may not be made against a member of The Law Society of Alberta or a person authorized under section 48 of the Legal Profession Act when scting as legal counsel for another person.” This is absolute discriminatory and in violation of sec.15 (1) and (2) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms!
Here are some facts that may be of help with your intervention on vexatiousness in Alberta in January:
1. There are no provisions in the Alberta Rules of Court for declaring a “Self-Represented Litigant” [SRL] a “vexatious litigant”. There are lots of rules in how to deal with “vexatious litigants” once they are “declared” but no rules in the declaration of one!
2. The Courts rely on “Vexatious Proceedings” “The Judicature Act” section 23 that had been repealed up until 2002, this is specific to targeting SRL’S ONLY! Proof of this is clear and unequivocal in section 23 (5) “An order under subsection (1) or (4) may not be made against a member of The Law Society of Alberta or a person authorized under section 48 of the Legal Profession Act when acting as legal counsel for another person.”
3. This is blatantly discriminatory as it holds the “Self-Represented Litigant” open to be declared a “vexatious litigant” and acts as a weapon of mass destruction for arbitrarily quashing the SRL in their tracks, while a lawyer has full immunity by NOT being held to the same standard of “vexatiousness”…continued
…This is an unambiguous violation of section 15 (1) and (2) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and flies in the face of “equality rights.” Alberta, as far as my research tells me is the only jurisdiction that uses the “Judicature Act” for DECLARING a “Self-Represented Litigant” a “vexatious litigant” and it involves the ‘Minister of Justice and Solicitor General” of Alberta and “The Attorney General of Canada” who are expected to, but never get involved and allow the Judges an unchecked free reign to do as they please. Leaving the Government open for grounds of a massive lawsuit the likes of never seen before! Time is too short to not fight for what is good and right!
I hope these facts will help the NSRLP team in your intervening in the Alberta Court of Appeals in January 2020.
i ask the national self represented organization, if we as a group,, are disadvantaged in the courts ,, more then disadvantaged actually,, then why are we not organizing,, and suing for our rights, We need to do this if we are ever going to access justice fairly. The judicial system has been ignoring us for as long as we have been talking, Now we need to organize, and sue, who would help, speak now, Who would like to be part of it, Speak ,
I have spoke to Sandra on several occasions and it’s a disgrace to how the B.C. courts have treated her. Is their any pro bono lawyer out there that will help this lady?
She’s a fighter and very credible person who has been brushed aside and declared a “vexatious litigant” for similar reason as that of Pintea v. Johns. She’s been at for 20 years and nobody seems to care about her
mis-treatment I listened to her case intently and it’s appalling how the courts have treated her.
Hi Sandra, of course I will help! I am self represented by circumstance, here in B.C. and so far have been doing ok. If it changes, I am with you!
Though I am not a fan of Harry Potter, this allegory between the events in Harry Potter;s and our Justice System in Canada in such a confirmation and encouragement to me, like you would not believe.
I am a self-represented litigant grand-mother who just lost her rights of visit with her grandchildren in May 2019 after 7 marvelous years of relationship with them without incidents.
I never dreamed I would practice what I teach and do for many years now, working in prisons with young offenders and women as a volunteers, having a school teaching how to fill legal court forms and become self-represented in the Court of Law. Easy to do for others, very difficult for yourself. I files an application at the Ontario Court of Justice on Jarvis Street in Toronto in June 2019 and it is still going on with no real sign of positive result as per today….but I am not quitting and yet do not know the next step!
What a great article by Ali Tejani, 3r dyear law student at the University of Windsor, and Research Assistant with the NSRLP.
Many blessings and lots of success in your law profession. Wish I could talk with her!
Odette Boily
President
Way of Life Association Inc.
Sorry Ali. Just found out you are a gentleman not a lady.
Still wish you the best in your profession and fighting for the rights of the people.