So far, the case of the shadow trial raises a lot of questions about the secrecy surrounding this file, which concerns a police informer. The right to information and the right to public justice are key aspects that deserve to be raised.
It is mentioned that this case has no file number and that there is no written or material trace that remains of the progress of the proceedings, as confirmed by the Quebec Court of Appeal.
In addition to these crucial questions, there are two that have not been raised: How was and who chose the judge? And why did the Court of Appeal maintain part of the secrecy on the name of the judge and the identity of the lawyers in the file?
The question of the choice of judge is essential, since the chief justices of the courts in Quebec say they have not been made aware of this affair. How is it possible for a judge to be asked to hold a trial and hand down a sentence without any cog in the judicial machine being involved?
As for the sentence, it is likely to be a prison sentence (probably long), otherwise why did you initiate this appeal before the Court of Appeal? Remember that this is an informer who would be part of organized crime. He was certainly not prosecuted for a peccadillo. Now the question of his possible imprisonment arises. How did the correctional authorities handle this case? Unless the defendant has obtained from a judge a release pending the decision of the appeal. Would it be the judge who sentenced him or another judge? Whatever the answer, we are faced with a problematic situation: either a second judge is involved, or the unknown judge has taken sides in a case that concerns him directly.
On reading the judgment of the Court of Appeal, we find that the three judges know the name of the unknown judge, and criticize him “with respect” as if it were a current file! Thus, despite a firm and unanimous judgment which “pronounces the stay of proceedings”, the three judges of the Court of Appeal do not dare to go to the end of their moral indignation and partly protect the judiciary, despite a hallucinating bewilderment. Why ?
Speaking of bewilderment, let’s not forget that last January, Judge Anouk Desaulniers, of the Court of Quebec, judicial district of Gatineau, was forced to hold a trial remotely, while the accused was in the latrines in a wing of the Rivière-des-Prairies detention centre. She is not the only one, it seems, since “the visiting rooms of the detainees are in the toilets”, according to a correctional officer. It seems that the judiciary has not made itself heard, nor have the other players in the justice system.
Perhaps we are at a critical moment conducive to the penal and criminal justice system being “overhauled”?