Vincent Larouche
The press

“This motion for leave to appeal raises important questions that are at the core of Canadian democracy,” media lawyers write in a document sent to the Supreme Court.

They stress that it is crucial for citizens to be able to follow the actions of the courts in the country.

“Indeed, freedom of expression, freedom of the press and its 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 openness of court hearings,” specifies Mr H.^e Christian Leblanc of Fasken Martineau Dumoulin.

“This case concerns a trial that took place without its existence being disclosed, which is of great concern to the public judiciary and which could be repeated across the country without the intervention of this honorable court,” the Supreme Court read forwarded reports.

The coalition of journalistic organizations that initiated this action includes The press, Radio-Canada, La Presse Canadienne and the daily newspapers Coops de l’information. The media are urging the Supreme Court to step in so they can challenge the secret-trial confidentiality orders.

Incompatible with the values ​​of a liberal democracy

On March 25th The press revealed the recent conduct of a secret criminal case in Quebec, all traces of which have been erased. The defendant in this case was a police informant charged with a crime the nature of which remains confidential and who was sentenced to an undisclosed sentence. There was no file number, the trial took place in a “completely closed session”, witnesses were allegedly questioned outside the court, the verdict was not published and even the name of the judge is unknown to this day.

This agreement between the parties prevented the Bar Association from exercising control over the behavior of the lawyers involved and concealed from the public the agreement reached between the police, the Crown and the valuable informant.

The Court of Appeal then overturned the defendant’s conviction, condemning this practice “against the fundamental principles” of the judiciary and “incompatible with the values ​​of a liberal democracy”.

However, they refused to publish the names of the prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges involved in this extraordinary trial. They gave no details of the nature of the charges or the sentence imposed, information the media said could be leaked without jeopardizing the police informant’s safety.

The Canadian Public Prosecutor’s Office (PPSC), which led the prosecution in this extraordinary exercise, still refuses to explain their conduct. The organization never said how the accused could have served his sentence and how his behavior could have been monitored if convicted. Federal prosecutors have exceptionally secured the right to plead faceless before the Higher Regional Court. The PPSC also refuses to disclose the list of criminal cases being handled by its Quebec prosecutors at the time.