Despite multiple requests to lift – in part – the veil on what has been called the “secret trial” in Quebec, the Court of Appeal has maintained the status quo, and refuses to reveal to the public more details on this case. .
In its 57-page decision released Wednesday, the court denied all requests, including those from the media, asking it to overturn the confidentiality orders issued and to release information about this criminal lawsuit against a police informant.
A redacted version of Wednesday’s judgment has been made public, and the full version has been placed under seal in the court file.
For the Court, this file highlighted “the problem of the coexistence” of the protection of the police informant with the principle of the publicity of legal proceedings.
But according to the three judges of the Court, the law and case law are clear and “unequivocal” on this subject: the privilege of the informant must take precedence.
The Court explains that this privilege exists to protect those who cooperate in law enforcement, and that it stems from the risk of revenge on the part of criminals.
“There can be no question of disclosing any information likely to identify the Designated Person (the police informer) at the risk of putting him or her in danger. »
Even the most innocuous details are risky, she continues, especially if they fall into the hands of the people who associated with her. This is also the case for the identity of the judge, the Court, the lawyers in the file and the police force involved, she decides, while agreeing that “this secret shocked. »
This information also risks breaking the privilege, “because together or separately” they “are here elements whose disclosure would lead directly to Designated Person. »
In short, in its judgment on Wednesday, the Court of Appeal agreed that justice must be public, with this nuance: “There are exceptions and the present case is one of them, which is also distinguished by its unusual nature and which does not It is not, on the contrary, the symptom of a justice tempted by opacity”, write the three magistrates of the Court.
Protecting the informer does not demonstrate a willingness to hide things from the public, they add.
The secrecy of the trial
The existence of this “phantom trial” was revealed in March by a previous judgment of the Court of Appeal which had then pronounced a stay of proceedings in favor of a police informer who, for an unknown reason, found accused of a crime… which he had apparently himself denounced.
The Court was shocked that this trial was held in the greatest secrecy, out of sight. No case number, no name of the judge or lawyers who argued the case. Even the name of the judicial district where the case took place is kept in shadow and under padlock. Without this judgment of the highest court in Quebec, we would not even have known that he had indeed held.
“In sum, no trace of this trial exists, except in the memory of the individuals involved”, can we read in the judgment of the Court dated March 23.
Outrage followed.
Even the chief judge of the Court of Quebec filed a motion to demand more transparency, as did the Minister of Justice, Simon Jolin-Barrette. They presented their arguments before the bench of the Court last June.