[23] The Applicant traces his ascent from the most troubled period of his life to his decision in 1997 to complete his High School General Equivalency Diploma, followed by UBC studies to gain his real estate licence.
[24] In 1998, at the age of 24, he was accepted to Douglas College where he joined the United Nations Club and co-founded the Human Rights Club, participating through May 2001. In August, 2000 he worked for a time as an immigration consultant and advocate.
[25] In 2001, he transferred to Simon Fraser University (SFU). Until his graduation in 2005, with a degree in Sociology, he was active in the South Asian Students Alliance, the South Asian Network for Secularism and Democracy, the SFU Public Interest Group, the Sociology and Anthropology Students Union and the Youth of Colour in Consultation Against Systemic Racism. He also became active in anti-gang youth education initiatives, accepting speaking engagements at schools and other community forums. To impressionable young students, the Applicant presented as a street-wise person who had lived through and rejected the gang life. His strong message to students was that gang involvement can only lead three ways: to death, to jail or to addiction, and would cause heartbreak to family. He stressed that gang activities involve preying on and selling drugs to already marginalized and, in many cases, mentally ill street people. He reports that, to this day, he is still regularly approached by young people who thank him for changing or turning around their lives.
[26] The Applicant began his UBC law school studies in September, 2007 and obtained his law degree in 2010. Throughout this period he volunteered and was active with the UBC Law Students’ Legal Advice Program and the Law Students of Colour United Against Systemic Racism and continued his activities as a guest speaker on youth gang issues.
[27] The Applicant completed his articles in Ontario in August 2011 at his father’s law firm and was called to the Ontario Bar on September 21, 2011.
[28] He returned to British Columbia without practising in Ontario for several reasons: primarily to care for his ailing mother who had no other support, secondly because he preferred British Columbia over Ontario and, thirdly, because he preferred to practise independently from his father, with whom, nonetheless, he enjoys a good relationship.
[29] The Applicant currently is employed as a carpenter. His goal is to practise law helping disadvantaged, low-paid workers, refugees and others who are marginalized in society. His interests include employment law, human rights and occupational safety. He testified to his strong belief in social justice and believes that his criminal past will help him better connect with and assist his target clientele. He said he might end up working in-house for a labour union or for government in the policy field.
[30] When asked, the Applicant denied any history of drug use and described himself as a social drinker.
[31] The Applicant described his life and state of mind now as a “rebirth” or “second life”. When pressed to describe his good qualities, he claimed he was a principled person deeply concerned about social justice and appreciative of his second life. He felt he was now a community-oriented, empathetic and compassionate person, committed to and focused on his future. He testified that his goal is to provide legal services to sectors of our society that are in need of legal help.
[32] When asked how he had dealt with and processed his past difficulties, he credited a supportive network of friends and associates and the timely guidance and mentorship provided by a few key people in his life, including a parole officer and a policeman. He is also able to see and understand his troubled personal past in the wider social context of the negative neighbourhood influences he grew up with. This background fuels his commitment to social justice for others.
[33] The Panel was concerned about the police report description of the Applicant by the officer who accused him of assault during the rally in 2004. In that report the Applicant was described as a highly belligerent, cursing and obstructive person. However, the Applicant asserts that he did not conduct himself in that way and that his evidence at trial on that charge was ultimately accepted over the police officer’s evidence, leading to an acquittal.
[34] Further, the Applicant was pressed to explain an inconsistency in his evidence. In his prior statements he told the Law Society of Upper Canada that the two robberies involved a White Spot and a Safeway store, but later told the Law Society of British Columbia that they were both Safeway robberies. The Applicant had no explanation as to why he made that error, speculating that he had asked his 1991 accomplice to assist him with details of the incidents and that he may have at some stage relayed incorrect information from that person. The Panel accepts that explanation.
[35] The Applicant tendered ten reference letters in total. They can be grouped into two categories:
a. Half of these letters were gathered before the Applicant received legal advice that a letter of reference in a hearing such as this is not compelling unless, in advance, the writer is provided with full disclosure of an applicant’s past misdeeds. However, after this advice was received, and prior to submitting the letters into evidence, the five referees were provided with written disclosure about the Applicant’s criminal charges and convictions. The evidence was that the referees chose to let their letters be submitted, despite the disclosure. They included letters from the Director of the South Asian Front Line Education Society, a Foreign Service Officer with the Department of Foreign Affairs, an SFU Professor of Sociology, the managing director of Headlines Theater, and a retired SFU Professor and President of the South Asian Network for Secularism and Democracy.
b. The second group of referees, were sent a detailed description of the Applicant’s past before the letters of reference were written. They included references from the Chair of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Langara College, a coordinator with the Mental Health Action Research and Advisory Association, the President of the Canadian Labour Congress, a Constable with the South Coast Transit Police, and a youth worker at the Broadway Youth Resource Centre. The letters confirmed the Applicant’s evidence regarding committed volunteer work, his integrity, maturity, excellent character and reputation in the social justice/human rights community, his frequent contributions to the SFU newspaper on topical social and political issues and his advocacy work.
[36] The Panel puts greater weight on the second group of five reference letters, from which we take a few quotes. The labour leader was “impressed with his maturity and resolve to make social justice the goal for his future.” A police expert on gangs believed that the Applicant’s “background and passion for helping youth will contribute to him becoming an outstanding lawyer and an officer of the court in delivering justice and guidance to the people who need it most in our society.” The youth worker stated that the Applicant is “sharply intelligent and wise, but also compassionate and deeply committed to justice.” A Chair from the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Langara College prepared a study guide for the National Film Board film “Warrior Boyz”, which featured the Applicant in anti-gang work, and in that study guide she “acknowledged that Mr. Mangat was a source of inspiration for [her] own work in academe and anti-gang prevention.”
[37] In closing submissions, the Applicant’s counsel urged upon the Panel that the Applicant has amply demonstrated his rehabilitation from a life of crime to a life of constructive, legal activity and an established pattern of significant positive community contributions.
[38] He further submitted that the Applicant’s federal pardon and his admission into the Law Society of Upper Canada were not determinative of the “fitness” test before us, but that they ought to be given some weight. He submitted that on a balance of probabilities, the evidence before the Panel of the Applicant’s unique history and circumstances satisfies the “good character, repute and fitness” test in LPA, section 19. The Panel agrees.
[39] In his closing submissions, Law Society counsel stated that, having heard all of the evidence on this hearing, the Law Society was not taking a position regarding the application. Law Society counsel underlined that the Panel’s determination of the Applicant’s character must be based upon the Panel’s assessment of the Applicant’s current character. Past behaviour may influence that current assessment, but is not determinative. He observed that the Applicant had answered questions about possibly inconsistent evidence in a forthright manner, several times admitting that he had no answer or explanation, and noted that the Applicant had not proffered facile answers. He observed that the Applicant’s turn-around of the direction of his life was both laudable and genuine; a remarkable journey. The Panel agrees with these submissions.
[40] The Panel observes that rehabilitation from a criminal past such as this is not only possible, but is to be encouraged. It is in the public interest to admit lawyers from diverse backgrounds with a view to meeting the legal needs of all sectors of society.
[41] We conclude that the Applicant has met the two-fold test for call and admission set out by the authorities referred to earlier in this decision:
a. In relation to requirement for good character, when a candidate for call has a significant criminal background, the spectre of risk to the public of a future return to such conduct is always a matter of concern. We have taken that into account, but it does not outweigh the Applicant’s trajectory of reform and constructive contributions to society that began, haltingly, when he returned to school in 1997. There were initial variations in the angle of that trajectory, and some setbacks. However, it is clear overall that the Applicant has profoundly transformed his life, activities, associates and goals. He has established his present good character.
b. In terms of good repute, the Panel gives significant weight to the substantive, positive letters of reference prepared by those who received advance, detailed disclosure of the Applicant’s violent criminal activities and record. They demonstrate the degree to which he meets the test of being “highly regarded and esteemed” amongst those who know him. He has met the burden upon him of establishing his good repute.
c. Although not determinative in itself, the Panel takes into account the fact that the Applicant has been pardoned for his criminal convictions.
Therefore, the Panel finds that Jagdeep Mangat is a person of good character and repute and is fit to become a barrister and a solicitor of the Supreme Court. We order that the application for call and admission is granted without conditions.
[42] We did not receive any submissions on costs, and accordingly, if not agreed upon between counsel, costs can be dealt with by written submissions made within 30 days of the delivery of this decision to counsel. Without prejudice to any such submissions that may be made, the Panel does observe that, despite the Applicant’s success in this hearing, the extent and degree of his past criminal behaviour made this hearing necessary.