Feature Article March 28, 2002
LAND O' LAKES NewsWeb HomeContact Us
Commentary disclosure in the criminal courtsby David BrisonThe Frontenac News has covered the criminal court in Sharbot Lake since I became editor in July of 2001. I have argued in a number of commentaries that the cause of justice is best served if criminal matters are dealt with locally. Also, that wherever possible the newspaper reports should cover everything that comes out in court, and not selectively comment on some cases and not others.
In line with this approach, we have advocated that matters be handled in Sharbot Lake and not be referred to Kingston, and have supported Judge Wright's efforts to make the courts work more effectively by limiting unnecessary delays. We have successfully lobbied through Rural Legal Services to have the courts duty counsel remain in Sharbot Lake after the court hours so they can help defendants understand what is required of them when they appear before the court.
In the past, in our coverage of the courts and OPP reports, we have not named defendants until they have been found guilty. The reason for this is that we felt that it was unfair to stigmatise individuals before their guilt had been established. In people's minds, being charged is often synonymous with being guilty, and those who were wrongly charged could suffer unduly from exposure in the paper.
However, this policy makes it hard for our readers to follow progress through the courts. When we say that a 34-year-old Arden man has been charged with arson, it is difficult for readers to follow that case through to the final outcome; for example, failure to appear in court or to find a lawyer, a guilty plea, a finding of not guilty, or the dropping of charges. The name makes the case easier to follow.
This ability to track the course of justice is important. If the police are laying charges and cant provide enough evidence to convict (Im not suggesting that this happens often), then the public ought to know about it. Certainly the performance of the Crown in bringing forth charges and then prosecuting them ought to be a matter of record (we have suggested that this has been less than sterling at times). It is very hard to follow cases without being able to attach a name to a case.
Is it unfair to name defendants who are found not to be guilty? Perhaps, but what often happens is that a portion of the community finds out anyway that an individual they know or know of has been charged. They often assume that they are guilty unless they hear otherwise. In our present system, readers dont usually know if they arent found to be guilty.
For these and a number of other reasons, we think that the public interest will be better served if there is complete disclosure, including names, at all stages in the progress through the courts from the original arrest. Fortunately, the right to disclose what happens in the courts is enshrined in our constitution, and the higher courts have upheld the rights of the media to do so. In special instances, such as young offenders and when it is necessary to protect victims, the Court limits disclosure, and The News will of course not publish names.
From now on, we will print names when individuals are charged although, because of space limitations, it will be necessary to do so gradually, and not report names on all the cases presently before the court.
Let us know what you think about this change in policy.
