A complaint has been filed with the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador against the lawyer who gave Robert Parsons and his family legal advice the night Matthew Churchill was struck and killed on the Bauline Line.

 

 

Rod Churchill, father of Matthew.
Photo by Paul Daly / The Independent

The crux of the allegation is that the lawyer, Keith Rose, advised the Parsons family not to report the incident to police immediately. While Parsons admitted drinking on the day of the crash, he was never charged with an alcohol-related offence because he did not admit his role until three days later. Police, therefore, could not determine how much he drank or his level of impairment.

Nor was the accident ever found to be Parsons’ fault.

Prosecutors determined he could only be charged with failing to stop and help at the scene of an accident where he knew someone was hurt or killed. He pleaded not guilty, was convicted after a lengthy trial, and sentenced to six months in jail.

The complaint is in two parts. The first makes serious allegations of “unethical and unprofessional conduct unbecoming an officer of the courts.”

The second alludes to “disturbing and unethical actions best described as ‘surveillance’ ” of the Churchill home and neighbourhood in the months after the terrible March 28, 2005 accident.

In short, the complaint — filed by Matthew’s father, Rod, with the assistance of his own lawyer — alleges the actions of Rose, who practices law in St. John’s, possibly helped Parsons dodge more serious charges and sentencing.

Rose, an acquaintance of the Parsons’ family, was the first lawyer they called after the accident. Bob Simmonds was retained after the fact and defended Parsons at trial.

Parsons served four months and is now free and living in central Newfoundland.

“Robert Parsons had a legal obligation to immediately identify himself to the police. Mr. Rose’s advice to him, given through (Parsons’) wife, instructed him to violate the law by not immediately reporting the accident, and it obstructed the police investigation,” reads the complaint, a copy of which was obtained by The Independent.

“It very likely allowed Robert Parsons to escape criminal liability for causing our son’s death.”

There’s no dispute that Rose was called at least once in the midst of the shock and mayhem that night. Several witnesses at Parsons’ trial — including his wife Joan and other family members — testified under oath that Rose was called and gave direction.

Here is a portion of Joan Parsons’ testimony:

Defence: “What is your understanding of the advice that (Rose) gave you that evening?

Joan Parsons: “The lawyer told us, or asked me, if we had some place to go for the night, and I said yes, and he said well leave the house and be at my office for nine o’clock in the morning and that’s what we did.”

Defence: “OK, so where did you go?”

Joan Parsons: “We went to the Delta Hotel.”

Rod Churchill remains frustrated that after six months of trying to retrieve the trial transcripts from the court, he still doesn’t have them all.

There may or may not be more detail of what was said between Rose and Joan Parsons, but he says what he has seen begs the question: “Why did Rose tell them to leave?

“If there was nothing or no one to hide, why not tell them to do the right thing — the legal, ethical and moral thing — and just call the police?”

The Parsons did as they were told, and went to Rose’s office for further advice the next morning.

Later that day, they went to the police, who were still frantically searching for the hit-and-run car that had killed a 15-year-old boy the night before.

But Joan Parsons only told police “a car of interest” — her car — was in the family driveway.

At trial, Joan Parsons confirmed the police asked her to give a statement, but she said Rose “told her not to.”

“We believe that this is proof of Keith Rose’s involvement in a conspiracy to protect Robert Parsons from criminal liability,” reads the complaint to the law society.

“Rose had to know that Robert Parsons had an obligation to at least report the accident, and himself as the driver, to the police. His advice was for him to avoid that obligation.”

The second part of the complaint deals with allegations that Rose was seen driving through the neighbourhood and past the Churchill’s home often in the months after the accident.

According to the complaint, at one point while Desma Churchill visited her son’s grave, she reported a vehicle slowly driving past and eventually stopping alongside the cemetery. Suspicious, she approached the Jeep but it drove away.

The complaint states she got the licence number and reported it to police, who confirmed it was registered to Rose. Contacted later by police, Rose confirmed he was in the area, but only on business, the document states.

This is not the first complaint filed with the law society against Rose. In fact, it’s the third in as many years.

In the two previous matters — in 2004 and 2006 — he was found guilty, reprimanded, and ordered to pay fines of $2,500, as well as expenses incurred by the law society in the investigation and hearing of the complaint. The law society would not reveal the nature of the old complaints against Rose.

Messages were left with staff at Rose’s law office this week, but he could not be reached for comment.

The Parsons did return a call from The Independent, but declined comment, saying they have yet to read the complaint.

Asked if obstruction of justice charges were ever considered against Rose — based on testimony at trial — the Crown prosecutor, Wynne Anne Trahey (recently appointed a provincial court judge), referred The Independent to police.

RNC spokesman Const. Paul Davis said the lead investigator on the case was unavailable this week for comment. And the law society does not comment on complaints until or unless a decision is made to proceed to a disciplinary hearing.

On average, it can take up to six months for that to happen.

These days, the Churchills are attempting to reconstruct their lives and move on in the wake of losing their only child.

But there are telling signs — in their words and actions — that it’ll be a long, if not impossible feat. Their answering machine still tells callers that neither Rod, Desma nor Matthew can come to the phone.

bmcallahan@hotmail.com