The lack of impatience of the Court of Appeal

If the highest court in Quebec really found the totally secret holding of a trial so unacceptable, it was careful not to show it on Monday.

The three judges, among the most renowned in Quebec, nevertheless wrote in their judgment of February 28 that the extent of this secrecy was “exaggerated and contrary to the fundamental principles which govern our justice system”.

Three months later, the absurdity has not been corrected by a comma.

This secrecy, a perfectly clear violation of the principle of publicity of trials, has however lasted for months – if not more than a year, because among the things that we do not know, there is the date of the trial…

I recall for the thousandth time that no media wants to identify or know the identity of the police informer who was at the heart of this secret trial. Everyone acknowledges their right to complete anonymity.

Also true, subtle legal issues are raised and deserve the attention of the Court of Appeal.

But can someone explain to me why the identity of the judge who presided over this secret trial has not already been revealed? That of the prosecutors? Just that: judges, lawyers.

We can know the names of the judges in absolutely all cases, in Montreal, New York or Guantanamo, whether in cases of terrorism, gangsterism, sedition…

But could we keep the identity of the judge secret here?

Impossible.

On Monday, judges Martin Vauclair and Marie-France Bich raised an important technical question: can the Court of Appeal legally cancel the closed session order or modify it? Or should she return the case to the first judge?

Media lawyers have argued that she has the authority to do so; the anonymous lawyers pleaded otherwise – behind closed doors, but this is known from their brief, partly public.

But even assuming that the case should be referred to the first judge… how could the media and other lawyers go and plead before him if we don’t know who he is, what court he sits on, etc.? ? You’d have to do this in a second basement parking lot, not knowing who’s the judge?

One way or another, we will have to identify this judge. This is the strict constitutional minimum. So why wait any longer? The ins and outs are well known, the Court of Appeal has had the whole file in hand for weeks.

People will say to me: bah, a day, a week, a month or four more, what difference? We will eventually find out…

Sorry, but it’s not supposed to work like that. The “right” decision is already long overdue.

Every day that passes without at least minimal correction of this exorbitant and illegal secrecy order worsens the violation of this constitutional right – the public’s right to know what is happening before our courts.

If I have read the teachings of the Supreme Court correctly, there is no hierarchy between fundamental rights: judges must try to make them coexist as much as possible.

If I read our law correctly too, nothing is more important than “public confidence” in the justice system. It is, we are told, the very foundation on which rests the edifice of justice.

How do you want to have confidence in a justice where a judge hides for no apparent reason behind a legal hood? Where public prosecutors, with a defense lawyer, not only plead behind closed doors in the Court of Appeal (which is normal to protect certain information), but in addition hide their names and remain holed up in their computer?

How many days will it take to put an end to this charade?

The Court of Appeal said in February that this is unacceptable. And of course, these three judges were shocked by this process. That’s why they denounced him.

But three months later, we are at the same point. That of zero information – or almost. This delay alone increases the stain on Quebec justice.

There is an urgent need to remedy this, at least for the basic information – which will probably be all we can know about this case, where the life of the informant is probably at stake.

Like: which court, which city, which judge, which year, which crime, which lawyers?

I can’t see what still justifies disclosing nothing, nothing, nothing about that, even if we sent the file back to the first judge.

I would have thought that, given the magnitude of the violation, the Court of Appeal would have been a little more impatient.