Rule 67 addresses submissions in mitigation based on alleged misconduct; what must you avoid?

• A. If using another person's alleged misconduct for mitigation, you must reveal their identity to the court
• B. You should disclose the identity of any person involved in misconduct to the media
• C. You must avoid using any alleged misconduct as a basis for submissions in mitigation
• D. If using the alleged misconduct of another person as a basis for submissions in mitigation, you must avoid disclosing the identity of that person unless reasonably necessary for proper defence

Answer: (D)

When you use alleged misconduct in mitigation, you must handle the other person’s identity with care. The rule allows discussing the misconduct but requires you to avoid disclosing who did it unless it’s reasonably necessary to mount a proper defence. This keeps the focus on the facts relevant to mitigation while protecting privacy and preventing unfair prejudice.

That’s why the correct approach is to avoid naming the person unless it’s reasonably necessary for your defence. Releasing the identity to the court or to the media isn’t required and can cause unnecessary harm, and insisting you must avoid using misconduct altogether would go beyond what mitigation submissions permit.