As one of the most sensational murder trials begins in Ontario this week, discussions continue about the need for publication bans surrounding this and other trials.
The subject was discussed a couple months ago by journalists, lawyers and a judge at the Canadian Association of Journalists annual conference.
B.C. Supreme Court Justice Wally Oppal defended the actions of some of his peers. “We don’t like to make bans. … but there are times we have to make them.”
Oppal said there’s the public’s right to know and freedom of the press on one side, but on the other there’s the right of the accused to a fair trial. The two may be conflicting.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
Are there too many bans? Oppal doesn’t think so, and said judges have to rely on the lawyers and assume there is a risk to the accused – a ban protects from irreparable harm, such as in the case of children.
Lawyer Dan Burnett of the law firm Owen Bird argued that sometimes the bans are dealt with as routine requests and it happens too often.
It costs a lot of money to fight the bans, and causes a lot of delays in the trials. Burnett said often the lawyers want to block some facts from being reported and the bans show a “lack of thinking on alternatives.”
He said his impression is there “always was and continues to be too many bans.”
Jon Festinger, general counsel for Western International Communications Ltd., feels the bans show a contempt for the public. “What is it we are so scared of that we feel we have to have bans?”
Justice Oppal said he doesn’t believe the bans are a sign of contempt for the public, and said Festinger has no respect for the power of the press.
Next week: more on bans.
