Court reporters face excessive
publication bans, one argues
By Eugene McCarthy
of the problems with going on a sabbatical is that
it stimulates your thinking processes. And if your sabbatical was at
school, as mine was last year, you begin to think like a lawyer,
questioning the law and the people who administer it.
Long before I went to law school, however, I was
suspicious, as I'm
sure are many of my fellow journalists who've covered courts for any
length of time, whenever orders were made banning publication of trials
or evidence for one reason or another.
I'm not referring to the standard ban on
publication requested by the
defence at a preliminary hearing. Rather, I'm concerned with such
orders in actual trials. Granted, most can be explained away under the
general heading of prevention of embarrassment to the victim, since
most orders are generated by sexual cases. The discretion is there in
the Criminal Code to protect the names of such victims to assure
that they won't be identified, or that their evidence won't be
published if the judge says it won't be.
My beef is with judges who go further than the
Code says they can, and
with Crown Attorneys who feel it's in the "public interest" to ask that
a court be closed just because some nasty details are likely to be
ALL EVIDENCE BANNED
A man, charged with his second offence in less
than a year of a
particularly brutal indecent assault against a woman, pleads guilty
to the charge. Before the Crown reads into the record a summary of the
evidence prepared by police, the presiding judge orders a ban on
publication of the identity of the victim and on all the
The Code (s.442.3) allows the judge to ban
publication of the "identity
of the complainant and her
evidence taken in the proceedings."
(Emphasis mine.)That leads me to believe parliament in its wisdom (a
phrase heard ad nauseam in the courts) didn't intend a publication ban
on summaries of the evidence read into the court record by the Crown.
The law refers only to what is called in legal jargon "viva voce"
evidence — where the victim testifies in person.
When I requested the learned judge after court and
suggested (with all
due respect) that he might have been exceeding his jurisdiction, he
replied: "Well, if you don't like my order, you know what you can do
I replied that I didn't think my newspaper would
want to pay to defend
a deliberately-incurred contempt of court citation. For my own
edification, I consulted two judges in a higher court who've had a
great deal more criminal law experience that the judge who made the
order. Both felt I was correct in my interpretation of the Code.
That's small comfort when you consider there's
really no way you can
vindicate yourself unless you defy a judicial order and risk contempt
A judge, in somewhat unusual circumstances,
insisted the trial of a
couple of fraud sharpies from the U.S. who'd stung a lot of local
merchants for cash and goods proceed. The pair agreed on a preliminary
hearing. No ban on publication was requested by the defence lawyer.
Halfway through the hearing, the judge observed me taking notes and
interrupted the defence lawyer, wondering whether he wanted a ban on
publication of the evidence. The lawyer said, in so many words, that he
couldn't care less. The judge then ordered the evidence not be
I tugged on the Crown Attorney's coat-tails and
asked him to point out
(with all due respect) to His Honour that the Criminal Code (467.1)
says: "Prior to the commencement of the taking of evidence in a
preliminary inquiry ..."That doesn't mean, to my way of thinking, that
an order like that can be made halfway through a hearing. The Crown
sympathized with my argument and so informed the judge. Replied
Hizzoner: "Well, that may well be but I think judges have some
prerogatives and the order will stand." Judge 1, media 0.
MEDIA NOT PRIVILEGED
You'll notice that in the last case, I had to ask
the Crown to present
my argument. Members of the media have no special privileges about
speaking in court (unless you happen to be charged or sued and become a
party to the action).
Every day one judge or another is decrying the
rise in crime and
stressing the need for general deterrence. Let's face it, if we the
media didn't publicize the sentences and penalties judges hand out for
"general deterrence," few people would get the word.
The courts depend on us yet are often too quick to
close the courtroom
doors or restrict publication of evidence if there's the slightest hint
of nastiness which usually is spelled S.E.X.
I recall a case in which a local land developer, a
member of the community, was able to get his trial in private after he
pleaded guilty to taking some questionable photos of young girls. It
wasn't because the developer was prominent that the court was closed.
It was because of the young girls giving evidence. But couldn't that
leave a member of the public somewhat suspicious?
And what of the case of several Boy Scout leaders
caught doing nasty
things to the young boys in their charge? Again, a closed court
for the sake of the children not for the sake of the accused. But isn't
it strange that the guilty parties don't have to suffer any
ALBERTA COURT RULING
A lot of Crown Attorneys (and defence lawyers)
apparently think that
whenever there's a hint of sex involved, the court should be closed. An
Alberta appeal court in 1978 noted, however: "The mere fact that the
charges are of sexual offences is not sufficient to justify an order
excluding the public.
"The discretion to exclude the public must be
exercised cautiously and only as circumstances demand," the Alberta
I've run into the arguement time and again from
Crowns and defence
counsel that if a decision is made to close the court, we as
journalists should go along unquestioningly "because you don't want to
print that stuff, anyway."
I don't know of one publication which uses names
of sex victims (unless
they happen to be dead and that's what the trial's all about).
Journalists ought to be able to attend almost every court sitting.
There are enough rules governing us when it comes
to the protection of
victims of crime. We don't need knee-jerk decisions of court personnel
who want to go beyond these
McCarthy is legal affairs and courts writer for the
Record. Two years ago he attended the University of
Western Ontario law and journalism seminar. He was a 1979-80 recipient
of a St. Laurent Fellowship in Legal Journalism at Queen's University
Law School in Kingston, Ont.
Published in Sources Winter 1980/81
Sources, 812A Bloor Street West,
Suite 201, Toronto, ON M6G 1L9.
Phone: (416) 964-7799 FAX: (416) 964-8763
Directory Include yourself
Mailing Lists and
Names & Numbers Sources Calendar
Names & Numbers