"First Rate" Fact Finding: Reasonable Inferences in Criminal Trials: A Lecture in Honour of Ivan Cleveland Rand (Canada‪)‬

Naturally, I have given some thought as to how I can honour Ivan Rand in this lecture. I feel that I can make a connection in terms of substance. I hope to link his well-known focus on the rule of law to my subject of drawing reasonable inferences in criminal trials. Style is more of a challenge. I feel in my bones that Ivan Rand would not have cared for a PowerPoint presentation. As well, when he wrote a paper, delivered a judgment or gave a lecture, he produced a knowledgeable, structured analysis of a particular area of law such as fraud. (1) His judgments, scholarly papers, and lectures were not striking for digressions, frivolities, or soul-searching about choice of words. He did not indulge in the lengthy footnotes described by Chuck Zerby in his book The Devil's Details, as the "corridor where the scholar pops out of his office to stretch his legs and meeting colleagues, gossips, tells jokes, rants about politics and society, and feels free to offer opinions based on nothing but his prejudices and whims." (2) Rather, Rand was a practitioner of the art of the footnote as brief citation. He was not averse to bold asides, such as the sweeping assertion in his article on fraud that fraud was present in almost every class of sport. (3) And it appears that he took pleasure in the collection of what might be called historical trivia, such as examples of "mischievous frauds" in the same article. (4) He referred to the existence of 2,000 "Van Dykes" when only 70 were painted by that artist. (5) Such observations or decorative illustrations were included in his text rather than his footnotes. In spite of my admiration for such flourishes as the 2,000 Van Dykes, I think it is fair to say that his sense of humour, personal opinion and interest in scholarly gossip were implied rather than explicit in his writing and lectures.