Publication ban far-reaching, unique

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 10/12/2010 (5597 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

PUBLICATION bans have become routine in high-profile court cases, but few have been as sweeping as the one imposed on April 30 in the Ontario murder case of eight-year-old Tori Stafford.

Journalists couldn’t even report that a hearing had taken place. A Supreme Court of Canada decision Thursday freed media outlets to finally report many details from that hearing, including a guilty plea from Terri-Lynne McClintic — one of two accused. However, questions remained about whether the ban, which sparked a clash between competing principles of an open court, a free press and a suspect’s right to a fair trial, was needed at all.

“In an open and free democratic society, the open court principle is critical,” said Iain MacKinnon, the lawyer who represented several media outlets in the Stafford case. “It’s important for the public to know what happens in courts and to be able to evaluate it and ensure justice is being done on a daily basis, so nothing is done behind closed doors.

“Otherwise, you start edging toward the old days of Star Chamber trials,” he said, referring to secret British courts held in the 16th and 17th centuries.

Dirk Derstine, the lawyer for Michael Rafferty — McClintic’s ex-boyfriend, who also was accused in the killing, said Thursday he fears the deluge of information about the case could hurt his client’s chances at a fair trial, which is set for next year. “There may be a rush to judgment.”

On May 19, the judge agreed to lift the ban partially. Rafferty’s lawyer appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. On Thursday, the high court refused to hear the case.

 

— Postmedia News