Almost two weeks after the revelations of The Presswe know little more about the circumstances in which a secret criminal trial was held in Quebec, at the alleged instigation of the RCMP and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada.
This case erodes the public’s trust in the judiciary to the point of requiring an independent review.
In interview at To have to, the Chief Justice of Canada, Richard Wagner, severely criticized the holding of this secret trial, an act which he considers “incredible” and “deplorable”. With his usual outspokenness, he conceded that this way of doing “does not help the cause of justice”.
We can not say so well.
The Chief Justice of the Court of Quebec, Lucie Rondeau, and her counterpart of the Superior Court, Jacques R. Fournier, also deplored this maneuver contrary to the principle of the publicity of the proceedings – and its corollary, the transparency of the administration of justice. Neither of them know if the case was heard by a magistrate working under their authority, which is truly staggering.
always according to The Press, this secret trial would involve the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and the federal Crown. The boss of the federal prosecutors, André Albert Morin, however denied having given the green light to this approach, while taking refuge behind his duty of reserve and loyalty so as not to make further comments.
One thing is certain, there is a judge who agreed to hear the criminal case of a police informant involved in organized crime in a complete and total camera. In the name of police informer privilege, recognized by the courts, this anonymous judge presided over a trial of which no trace remains, not even the name of the judicial district, the nature of the charges, the verdict or the identity of the prosecutors and lawyers involved in the case.
Had it not been for a heavily redacted decision by the Court of Appeal, no one would have heard of the case. It exists nowhere else than in “the memory of those involved”, observes the Court of Appeal.
The trial judge who heard the case accepted the unacceptable. He should have the courage and the ethics to reveal his identity. This would be a first, albeit timid, step towards restoring public confidence in justice. A judge does not benefit, Verbatimof the privilege of the police informer to escape public scrutiny of his conduct.
The Minister of Justice, Simon Jolin-Barrette, asked the Court of Appeal to release the portions of the file which do not compromise the privilege of the informant, a sacred principle without which the police could not gain the confidence of informers and advance their investigations. A media consortium has joined the process to seek further clarification from the Court of Appeal and ensure that this shadow trial is no longer one, without compromising the anonymity and security of the informant.
This is another encouraging gesture, but insufficient given the fog in which the chief justices of the Court of Quebec and the Superior Court find themselves.
Obtaining more information on the protagonists of this file will not make it possible to understand how this drift was able to germinate in the minds of the parties involved, and how their respective institutions were involved (or deceived?) in the procedure.
An independent investigation, short and circumscribed, would be useful to understand how judicial officers made the decision to investigate this case in flagrant violation of the principle of the publicity of legal proceedings. As the Barreau du Québec suggests, we need “clear mechanisms” to avoid new sham trials in the future. Quebec has no shortage of experienced lawyers, retired and totally independent, to tackle this task.
Informant privilege is one of the pillars of the legal system, as is solicitor-client privilege. The necessary protection of the informant’s anonymity, to guarantee both his safety and the viability of police investigations, is not exempt from abuses. It is a convenient screen preventing the examination of practices in the recruitment and management of police informants. These practices fall into a blind spot that has not been the subject of public lighting for a long time.