The defence lawyer for an N.W.T. man convicted of murder and attempted murder says he was “surprised” to receive notice of his firing and allegations of not giving proper representation during his client’s trial.

“He has made [those allegations] non-stop since the end of the trial,” defence lawyer Charles Davidson said before a special commissioner appointed to review the merits of the convicted man’s appeal on Tuesday.

Kevin Mantla was sentenced in 2018 to life in prison with no chance of parole for 20 years for the second-degree murder of Elvis Lafferty and the attempted murder of Mantla’s ex-girlfriend.

In September this year, Mantla, 44, appealed the conviction and also alleged that his defence lawyers including Davidson, “tricked” him into not testifying during the trial.

“They were working behind the scenes with the Crown and the victim to set me up,” Mantla wrote in an affidavit submitted to the appeal court.

Davidson was cross-examined in court Tuesday. He said his last personal meeting with Mantla was at North Slave Correctional Centre in mid-June 2018, two weeks before Mantla’s sentencing.

Davidson said he left the meeting without sensing any issues and noted that “we parted on the note” that Davidson would continue to handle the sentencing.

Davidson later said in court that he was “surprised” when he received a complaint about his handling of Mantla’s case. However, he added that the Law Society dismissed the complaint in its review in the fall of 2018.

On Tuesday, Mantla represented himself in court but received assistance from John Hale, a lawyer appointed by the Court of Appeal.

Hale stated that the outcome of this hearing would be part of Mantla’s larger appeal of his conviction and sentencing, tentatively scheduled for early 2025. Hale said the special commissioner will review the merits of Mantla’s allegations against his lawyers, and submit it back to the Court of Appeal.

‘Arm-twisted’ to not testify, Mantla says 

Mantla, through Hale, alleged that he was “arm-twisted into not testifying” and argued that it was not an informed decision.

Davidson read out his notes in court from January and February 2018, showing they had discussed the matter with Mantla extensively. Davidson said he explained the potential outcomes of testifying versus not testifying and emphasized that the decision was ultimately Mantla’s.

Davidson stated that he had advised Mantla that testifying could result in him presenting “bad information” in court. On February 12, Mantla confirmed his decision in writing, stating he did not wish to testify.

“We told him multiple times it was his choice, and if he changed his mind, he needed to let us know,” Davidson said in court.

In Mantla’s testimony during his appeal in September, he also claimed he was at Lanky Court during the incident and “blacked out” briefly before realizing he was holding a knife and that Lafferty had been killed.

Davidson said this was all “new information” to him and had never been mentioned by Mantla during the trial proceedings six years ago. If Mantla had testified to that version of events, Davidson argued, it would have likely weakened the defence’s case further.

Davidson also said that he has been practising law since 1985, and in his experience, decisions regarding pleading guilty, opting for a judge or jury trial, and testifying are ultimately left to the client.

The hearing on Mantla’s appeal continues Wednesday.