The Supreme Court of Canada will examine the “shadow criminal trial” case, which was held in worrying secrecy in Quebec.

The country’s highest court announced Thursday morning that it had agreed to hear the case. This is the case if he considers that this is of national interest or is a matter of new legislation.

It was the Quebec government that asked the Supreme Court to take up the case and order the Court of Appeals to release more information about this behind-closed-doors criminal trial.

A group of media including are The pressRadio-Canada, La Presse canadienne and the daily newspapers of the Coops de l’Information have also made a similar request, asking it to hear this case, which involves the balance to be struck between the publicity of judicial proceedings and the public protection of whistleblowers Police – necessary for solving crimes.

Several actors in the judiciary have spoken out against this approach: who else could be convicted outside the judiciary and possibly imprisoned unnoticed?

“This motion for leave to appeal raises important questions that are at the core of Canadian democracy. In fact, freedom of expression, freedom of the press and its corollary, the public’s right to information, are pillars of democracy,” the media pleaded.

out of the shadows

The existence of this phantom trial was revealed in March 2022 by a redacted judgment of the Court of Appeal.

This judgment dropped the criminal case against a police informant who, for unknown reasons, was accused of a crime she appeared to have reported herself. The three-judge panel also issued orders of confidentiality and the sealing of all proceedings, notes and documents in the case.

The Court of Appeals said it was shocked that this trial was being held amid the greatest secrets: neither the case numbers nor the names of the judges and attorneys arguing the case. Even the name of the judicial district where the case took place is kept in the dark and under a padlock.

As for the public, without this Court of Appeals ruling, they would not even have known that this trial actually took place.

On the other hand, when asked to disclose more information about this prosecution, the court of appeal flatly rejected: “It cannot be a matter of disclosing information that is suitable for identifying the “designated person”. [nom donné à l’informatrice de police dans le jugement] at the risk of endangering them”.

No one asked for his name, but Quebec still ordered the Court of Appeals to release any information that would not allow his identification.

That ruling raised significant questions and concerns among Quebecers and “damaged public confidence in the administration of justice,” Quebec insisted in its brief submitted to the Supreme Court to persuade it to hear the “affair.”

He wants the country’s highest court to order the appeals court to partially remove the seals on the case because “no trace of the first-instance trial exists. »

The Supreme Court will announce at a later date when it will hear the parties’ arguments.

To see in the video