In more than 30 years of following justice in this country, I have seen it, closed doors, publication bans, redactions and unidentified witnesses.
Posted at 5:00 a.m.
But I never thought a judge would allow a secret trial, held outside the courthouse, without a case number. A trial so secret that the judge himself did not see the witnesses, but read the transcript of their testimony.
A “phantom” trial. Who would have been left without a trace if there hadn’t been a call. And which has just been revealed by the Court of Appeal.
Whose trial? We’ll never know.
For what crime? It’s secret.
A crime committed when and where? Complete mystery.
The reason for this extreme secrecy is that the accused is a police informer. These people who infiltrate the criminal world, or who come from it, risk their lives if their identity is revealed. The law recognizes their right to total anonymity, and no one disputes that.
Sometimes it goes as far as in camera testimony. And if by impossibility the whole trial is behind closed doors, we know that it is taking place, who is presiding over it, who are the lawyers, and the verdict, the sentence…
Right here ? Nothing nothing nothing.
X was found guilty in this shadow trial. X appealed. And the Court of Appeal comes to free X from all charges – because the police would have promised him immunity, but that’s another story.
The judgment of the Court of Appeal is dated February 28, but was not published (with redaction) until Wednesday.
The highest court in Quebec sharply denounces this way of proceeding. Except that it gives us no further information.
However, the words are strong: by doing a trial like this, the judge used an “exaggerated and contrary to the fundamental principles that govern the justice system” method, write judges Marie-France Bich, Patrick Healy and Martin Vauclair.
This completely unprecedented secret trial (with one exception denounced in British Columbia in 2007) is “absolutely contrary to modern criminal law”. Not just modern! The principle of advertising is centuries old!
A secret trial violates the rights of the accused himself AND of the public to be informed.
The unknown judge did not even call the media to obtain their observations, as he should have done, deplores the Court of Appeal. (We assume that the unknown judge is from the Court of Quebec since the Court of Appeal cites a regulation of this court, but who knows…)
But then, if this medieval process is exaggerated, why did the Court of Appeal not disclose the names of the participants in this absolutely unprecedented masquerade?
The Court of Appeal also did not require the opinion of the media before rendering judgment.
Why is she protecting this judge’s name? As far as we know, his life is not in danger like that of the informant. Hundreds of judges deal with informers.
Since when do criminal trials take place outside the palace, on paper? It’s totally delusional. Are there any other unnumbered trials being held anywhere?
Why can’t we know who the brilliant public prosecutor who participated in this scandalous operation is? Or the defense attorney?
Note, in a similar case, the defense and the prosecution agree like thieves on the idea of secrecy. It’s up to the judge to remember constitutional law, if everyone in the room has forgotten it… Oh sorry, it wasn’t in a room. In a park, perhaps? A starry room?
If this secrecy is “exaggerated” and contrary to all principles, as the Court of Appeal said, why perpetuate it?
If there is a reason to protect the anonymity of actors in the justice system, the least you can do is give it to us. “There must be a minimum of publicity”, as the Court of Appeal itself said. Agree with that!
If terrorism or organized crime trials involving dozens of defendants have been able to take place with witnesses under close surveillance, we should be able to manage the protection of an informant, even if he is the defendant, and not just a witness.
All that to say that I am in no way impressed by the loud cries of the Court of Appeal. To say that this is a flagrant violation of the principles of transparency and to put everything under seal is to endorse it, but to give the impression of being shocked.
One of two things. Either, as the Court of Appeal said, all that was totally exorbitant, exaggerated and unacceptable, and then it must be remedied and disseminated as much as possible.
Either it was justified and then it has to be explained.
But the Court of Appeals says instead that it doesn’t make sense… while not fixing anything in what is the worst case of secret justice that has ever been reported to us.
Of course, it can’t stop there.