Suspended lawyer's behaviour 'unflattering' but not criminal, defence contends at trial

The defence for suspended Ottawa lawyer James Bowie — accused of criminally harassing a woman, trying to get her to obtain a firearm for him, and threatening to kill an ex-client in the woman's presence — says that while there's no doubt Bowie engaged in "unflattering" behaviour, none of it was criminal.

The prosecution, meanwhile, argues that by tracking and following the woman, failing to leave her alone after she stopped responding to his calls and texts, and scaring her with his "unhinged" efforts to clear his name, Bowie's actions were indeed criminal.

The woman cannot be identified because of a publication ban. 

Leanne Aubin is the former client of Bowie's who alleged he offered his legal services in exchange for oral sex. That charge was withdrawn by the Crown this week.

Bowie has pleaded not guilty at his trial, which has now heard closing submissions from assistant Crown attorney Kerry Watson and defence lawyer Eric Granger.

Granger told court Friday there's no direct evidence that Bowie threatened to kill Aubin, whose public accusations greatly affected his life. Nor was there direct evidence, he argued, that Bowie asked the other woman for a firearm to "deal with" Aubin — aside from the woman's own testimony, which Bowie refutes.

If Ontario Court Justice Paul Cooper can't be sure Bowie said those things, then the Crown's case isn't proved beyond a reasonable doubt on three of the four charges Bowie still faces, Granger argued.

And if the case for those three counts collapses, the case for criminal harassment is significantly weakened, Granger said. 

Bowie admits to twice placing a GPS tracking device on the woman's vehicle and using it to follow her. But he denies that it and other behaviours rise to the level of threatening conduct: the woman was not afraid, her fear was not reasonable, he did not intend to make her afraid or wasn't willfully blind or reckless to her fear, and more.

At most, Granger said, Bowie's actions would have vexed, disquieted or annoyed her.

Woman's fear was real, reasonable, Crown contends

On Wednesday, Watson likened Bowie's version of events to "a plot out of a John Grisham novel," complete with private investigators following him with drones and bugging his office, and "a duplicitous female character" in possession of "smoking gun" evidence Bowie desperately wanted.

(Grisham writes fictional legal thrillers.)

Bowie also engaged in character assassinations of both women who testified against him, as well as Ottawa lawyer Michael Spratt, whom Bowie accused of wanting to kill him and colluding with one of the witnesses.

Watson called the character assassinations evidence of Bowie's hatred, and that it speaks volumes about his "distorted sense of reality."

She said Bowie's stalking, texts and calls to the unidentified woman constituted threatening conduct that have caused her to feel like she has a target on her back and that Bowie could harm her. Watson argued that any other reasonable person would have been scared, too.

And while the woman never explicitly told Bowie to leave her alone or that she didn't want to help him, trying to ignore Bowie "overwhelmingly communicated" as much, Watson argued.

Conflicting testimony about emails

Earlier Wednesday, the Crown's first witness was recalled to the stand for further cross-examination by Granger.

Her testimony had ended last week. But on Tuesday, Granger tried to put evidence involving the witness to Bowie that the witness wasn't asked about when she was on the stand — a violation of procedure.

Granger showed her two emails sent from her account to Bowie. She testified she'd never seen them before, and that she would leave her phone — which she did not lock with a password — in Bowie's presence when they were hanging out at bars.

One of the emails contained pictures of a phone showing a social media conversation between two women about how to make complaints about Bowie. One said she publicly posted her story, and alleged that Bowie or a friend of his called her using a burner phone and threatened that they knew where she lived.

The other email contained pictures of another conversation in which a woman said Bowie pressured her to take drugs or money from him in exchange for giving him oral sex or watching someone else perform it on him.

In re-examination by Watson, the woman testified her relationship with Bowie was good at the time the emails were sent, that she would have felt free to leave her phone on the table in his presence, and that other people were sometimes present.

On Friday, Granger said the woman's testimony about the emails is one example in a pattern of trying to distance herself from her involvement in Bowie's plot to get incriminating evidence about Aubin and Spratt. He argued that the judge should take it into consideration in assessing the woman's reliability and credibility, among other factors.

Cooper is expected to give his judgment in the coming weeks.