Minister Simon Jolin-Barrette expressed concern Thursday by the recent holding of a secret criminal trial of which all traces have been erased. He says he wants to “go around the question”, but refuses to say what his government will do for the moment.
Posted at 1:24 p.m.
Updated at 1:56 p.m.
“I actually read the article. I am watching the decision and I will be able to hold you back with additional comments once I have gone through the matter, ”he told reporters on Friday, on the sidelines of a press conference. .
He thus reacted to the revelations of The Press, according to which the Court of Appeal denounced the holding of a criminal trial of which there remains “no trace”. Reached in the afternoon, his cabinet did not wish to give further details.
To the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions (DPCP), the spokesperson Mand Audrey Roy-Cloutier cautiously recalls “that because of the importance that must be given to the privilege of the informant as well as to the orders rendered by the Quebec Court of Appeal, the DPCP cannot confirm or invalidate having acted as prosecuting in this case”.
In the public, but heavily censored version of their decision, which was published on Wednesday, three judges of the Quebec Court of Appeal dubbed this case “File X”. Few details are given, but the magistrates specify that the case concerned a mysterious informant or a police informant.
This person likely had a “verbal agreement” to cooperate with experienced police officers in an unidentified criminal investigation. However, everything would have gone wrong when, after having revealed the existence of a crime to the investigators, this same person would have found himself accused of this crime, which seemed to violate the terms of his agreement with the police.
According to the Court of Appeal, the lawyers for the police informant would then have agreed with the Crown prosecutors to keep the trial of “Dossier X” secret, in contravention of the most basic rules of the justice system, which is supposed to be public. The parties thus wanted to protect the identity of the informant, so that his life would not be threatened by criminals.
It is not known in which region the affair took place, or when, and it is not known which police force was involved. Nothing has been disclosed on the nature of the charges filed either.
“This way of proceeding was exaggerated and contrary to the fundamental principles which govern our system of justice”, writes the panel of judges in its decision, deploring that “no formal number appears on the substantial judgment of the trial judge”, that the witnesses were “examined out of court”, and that “in short, no trace of this trial exists, except in the memory of those involved”.
“The Court is of the opinion that if trials must protect certain information disclosed therein, a procedure as secret as the present one is absolutely contrary to modern criminal law and respectful of the constitutional rights not only of the accused, but also of the media, as well as incompatible with the values of a liberal democracy,” the magistrates also ruled.
With Vincent Larouche, The Press