A media coalition, including The Press, asks the Supreme Court to intervene in the case of the mysterious secret criminal trial held recently in Quebec. Without the intervention of Canada’s highest court, this kind of arrangement to keep the population in the dark “could be repeated across the country”, they warn in their notice of application for leave to appeal.
Posted at 8:00 a.m.
“This application for leave to appeal raises important issues that are at the heart of Canadian democracy,” write media lawyers in a document sent to the Supreme Court.
They emphasize that it is essential for citizens to be able to follow the actions of the courts in the country.
“Indeed, freedom of expression, freedom of the press and their corollary, the public’s right to information, are pillars of democracy. At the heart of these fundamental rights and freedoms is the principle of the publicity of judicial debates”, specifies the text signed by the hand of Mr.e Christian Leblanc, from Fasken Martineau Dumoulin.
“This case concerns a trial that took place without its existence being disclosed, which is very worrying for public justice and which, without the intervention of this honorable court, could be repeated across the country”, continues the opinion sent to the Supreme Court.
The coalition of journalistic organizations that initiated this action includes The Press, Radio-Canada, La Presse Canadienne and the Coops de l’information dailies. The media are asking the Supreme Court to intervene so they can challenge the confidentiality orders issued in the secret trial.
Incompatible with the values of a liberal democracy
On March 25, The Press revealed the recent holding in Quebec of a secret criminal trial of which all traces have been erased. The accused in this case was a police informant accused of a crime, the nature of which remains confidential and who received a sentence which was kept secret. No file number was available, the proceedings had taken place in a “complete and total closed session”, witnesses were allegedly questioned outside the court, the judgment has not been published, and to date, even the name of the judge remains unknown.
This arrangement between the parties prevented the Law Society from exercising control over the behavior of the lawyers involved and concealed from the public the arrangement reached between the police, the Crown and the valuable informant.
The Court of Appeal then quashed the accused’s conviction and decried this way of doing things “contrary to the fundamental principles” of justice and “incompatible with the values of a liberal democracy”.
However, they refused to make public the names of the prosecutors, defense lawyers and the judge involved in this extraordinary procedure. They did not give details of the nature of the charges or the sentence imposed, information which the media said could be relayed without compromising the security of the police informant.
The Public Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC), which led the prosecution in this extraordinary exercise, still refuses to explain its conduct. The organization never said how the defendant could have served his sentence and how his conduct could have been monitored in the event of a conviction. Federal prosecutors have exceptionally obtained the right to plead before the Court of Appeals without their faces being seen. The PPSC also refuses to disclose the list of criminal cases handled by its prosecutors in Quebec at that time.