Globetechnology: On-line journal provokes a firestorm — You can be sure this will become a trend. In Canada they ban most coverage of current trials until they are over. So this will be the way its done. Kind of like offshoring. What is pathetic about this story, though, is that there is no link to the blog nor a genuine name of the blog given. Luckily, you can read between the lines to figure it out. Or you can click here. It’s called the Captain’s Quarters Blog. The server is swamped so keep trying.
OTTAWA %u2014 An unassuming 42-year-old call-centre manager and Star Trek fan from Minneapolis, Minn., has provoked a political firestorm in Canada. Ed Morrissey — Captain Ed to his friends — published on the weekend what no Canadian is allowed to print or broadcast. On his Internet blog, he posted testimony before the Gomery commission that is subject to a publication ban.
Yesterday, after the story of his blogging exploits broke in the Canadian media, Mr. Morrissey saw the traffic on his website increase tenfold as Canadians clicked on to read the testimony from Quebec ad executive Jean Brault.
By midday, 131,000 people had visited the site. In just one hour before lunchtime, he had 26,000 hits and by the end of the day he estimated he was on track for about 300,000 hits, many from Canadians. He averages 22,000 visits a day.
As an American, Mr. Morrissey is not subject to the ban, and his publication of the details of the testimony has made the story accessible to all Canadians.
No, all trials are open, every one.
Federal Court (specialized court for copyright, trade matters etc.)
hears security trials of refugees, and the like, and may have a
ban on reporting if asked by security officials.
There are hundreds of publication bans, on the millions of trials,
but they are such things as : do not identify the child or parent in anyway;
because another case is upcoming (as in this Gomery enquiring) which
is a criminal trial, do not report on this case until the second case is
finished and sentencing.
Most bans, other than requests in commercial trials are to protect
innocents (and they are all innocent until proven) or side persons
to a case, are by request of one of the parties and the judge has
to consider that request.
Few bans are in effect after a trial has ended.
See the various bans at the recent Air India trial which were
in the main, lifted at the conclusion of the trial and the
defendents were declared not guilty.
Anyone could view the trial, just not report on it.
“In Canada they ban most coverage of current trials until they are over.”
Not true.
Canada does not have Grand Juries that most American jurisdictions use. Instead they depend upon Preliminary Hearings before a judge to determine if there is enough evidence to proceed. Many times these Preliminary Hearings are not publicized so as to prevent any potential pollution of the jury in the actual trial.
Only in extremely rare cases are they held in secret and the public is able to attend even if the proceedings cannot be published. Totally unlike the American Grand Jury where the prosecutor may hold secret hearings and the subject is not allowed to defend themselves. A Canadian Preliminary Hearing allows cross-examination of witnesses. Even with matters of National Security, trials and hearings must be publicly advertised even if they are held behind closed doors.
In this case, there was testimony being taken before an Inquiry. The testimony was being held “in camera” because the witness was about to be tried before a jury concerning the same testimony. There was no nefarious Government purpose in holding the testimony secret. The actual goal was to provide a fair trial for the witness. The process was open as the media were allowed to attend but they were not allowed to report the testimony until after the trial.
To me, there is a large difference between a ban on reporting and a secret trial. Comparing the legal systems of Canada and the United States, I believe that Canada has better safeguards towards granting an accused a fair trial.
While on the surface this story appears abhorrent, looking beneath the surface there may be much ado about nothing.