Judge reserves decision on cameras in court for James’ sentencing

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 16/03/2012 (5184 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

A Winnipeg judge has reserved her decision on whether TV cameras will be allowed in Tuesday’s sentencing of disgraced ex-hockey coach Graham James.

Provincial Court judge Catherine Carlson said she’ll tell four city media outlets, including the Winnipeg Free Press, on Monday whether two fixed cameras can be installed in the courtroom to “livestream” the sentencing and for later TV news coverage.

Carlson was asked Friday to grant permission to allow the cameras so that Canadians coast to coast can see and hear the proceedings, plus see James’ reaction when he hears his sentence.

The Free Press, CBC, Global and CTV want Carlson to allow cameras at the March 20 sentencing of James, the former junior hockey coach and convicted sex offender, on two counts of sexual assault.

He pleaded guilty in December to sexually assaulting former NHL star Theoren Fleury and Todd Holt, Fleury’s younger cousin, while coaching them in the junior hockey in the 1980s and ’90s.

Cameras have never been allowed inside Manitoba courtrooms.

Media lawyer Bob Sokalski said the right of the public to see the proceedings outweighs any security or privacy concerns as Canadians already know what James looks like, plus he’s already pleaded guilty.

The cameras would also “livestream” the sentencing.

During a sentencing hearing last month, Crown attorney Colleen Duff argued James should be handed a six-year prison sentence, while defence counsel Evan Roitenberg asked for a conditional sentence of 12 to 18 months.

Media organizations were unsuccessful the last time they attempted to get a video camera into a courtroom.

Provincial court Judge Tim Preston rejected a bid by several media organizations in 2010 to televise the Brian Sinclair inquest. Sinclair, a double amputee, died after spending 34 hours in the emergency department waiting room at the Health Sciences Centre in September 2008.

Since then, however, Queen’s Bench Chief Justice Glenn Joyal has been quoted saying he is open to the idea of cameras in courtrooms; however, he said, it should be up to sentencing judges to make the final decision.

The only court in the country that allows cameras for almost all of its proceedings is the Supreme Court of Canada, but a few provincial Appeal Courts have experimented with allowing cameras.

Hugo Rodrigues, national director of the Canadian Association of Journalists, said he’s in favour of cameras in courtrooms.

Winnipeg Free Press | Newsletter

Paul Samyn | Editor's Note

Wednesdays

A weekly dispatch from the head of the Free Press newsroom.

Sign up for Paul Samyn | Editor's Note

Sign Up

I agree to the Terms and Conditions, Cookie and Privacy Policies, and CASL agreement.

“It would benefit the public,” Rodrigues said. “Justice must be seen. If we are going to have an open justice system, this is a small step… People will be able to determine whether they feel justice has been adequately served.”

Arthur Schafer, a professor at the University of Manitoba and director of its Centre for Professional and Applied Ethics, said broadcasting a sentencing decision would be educational for the public.

“It would allow the public to hear the reasons and the decision,” Schafer said.

“The potential harm would be slight. It would be in the public’s interest and it is something the public is interested in.”

With files from Kevin Rollason