No cameras for James’ sentencing
Request denied for today's hearing
Advertisement
Read this article for free:
or
Already have an account? Log in here »
To continue reading, please subscribe:
Monthly Digital Subscription
$1 per week for 24 weeks*
- Enjoy unlimited reading on winnipegfreepress.com
- Read the E-Edition, our digital replica newspaper
- Access News Break, our award-winning app
- Play interactive puzzles
*Billed as $4.00 plus GST every four weeks. After 24 weeks, price increases to the regular rate of $19.95 plus GST every four weeks. Offer available to new and qualified returning subscribers only. Cancel any time.
Monthly Digital Subscription
$4.99/week*
- Enjoy unlimited reading on winnipegfreepress.com
- Read the E-Edition, our digital replica newspaper
- Access News Break, our award-winning app
- Play interactive puzzles
*Billed as $19.95 plus GST every four weeks. Cancel any time.
To continue reading, please subscribe:
Add Free Press access to your Brandon Sun subscription for only an additional
$1 for the first 4 weeks*
- Enjoy unlimited reading on winnipegfreepress.com
- Read the E-Edition, our digital replica newspaper
- Access News Break, our award-winning app
- Play interactive puzzles
*Your next Brandon Sun subscription payment will increase by $1.00 and you will be charged $17.95 plus GST for four weeks. After four weeks, your payment will increase to $24.95 plus GST every four weeks.
Read unlimited articles for free today:
or
Already have an account? Log in here »
Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 20/03/2012 (5163 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.
If you want to see Graham James’ reaction today to his sentence, you’ll need to be in the courtroom.
That’s the gist of Provincial Court Judge Catherine Carlson’s decision Monday to deny a request by the Winnipeg Free Press, CBC, CTV and Global TV to place two cameras in the courtroom to broadcast James’ sentencing live on the Internet and to capture the event for TV newscasts.
To allow cameras inside the court would “perch the court on the brink of sensationalism” rather than keeping it rooted in “dignity and decorum,” Carlson said.
“This case is highly charged enough. It’s not going to become a spectacle.”
Carlson said media are free to attend and report on what happens to James and an electronic version of her decision will be available immediately after the hearing for posting on news websites.
“People who want to read the reasons for decision may do so,” Carslon said. “In the court’s view, having (a) broadcast of the judge reading the reasons adds little to the administration of justice. It does not provide more information to the public.”
She also cautioned that if cameras were allowed, the video images would be circulated on the Internet outside of the control of the four media outlets and more importantly, the courts.
“The court cannot sanction anything that could result in any type of re-victimization,” she said.
James is to be sentenced today 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 junior hockey during the 1980s and early ’90s. Charges against James involving a third player, Greg Gilhooly, were stayed.
The Crown is seeking a six-year prison sentence. The defence is asking for a conditional sentence with no jail time.
James, 59, first gained notoriety when he pleaded guilty in 1997 to sexually abusing Sheldon Kennedy, who also later played in the NHL. James served about 18 months of a 31/2-year sentence before he got out of jail in 2000. The National Parole Board pardoned him in 2007. The Harper government has since overhauled the pardon system, banning pardons for those convicted of sexual offences against a minor.
Court has heard James singled out several of his young players to victimize, keeping them close to him and often separating them from their family by convincing them the teen needed tutoring and had to spend the night at his apartment.
James’ lawyer Evan Roitenberg said televising the sentencing would be an invasion of James’ privacy as he’s been the target of a death threat and wants to protect his face from being identified.
Carlson also said the media’s March 9 request came too late in the game for a more thorough examination of its pros and cons.
Cameras are not allowed in Manitoba’s courts except in special circumstances, such as the swearing-in of a new judge. The courts have been studying the use of cameras for several years without a decision being made. Currently, it’s up to the presiding judge to decide if cameras should be allowed into a criminal case, inquest or appeal hearing. Cameras are allowed in public inquiries that are held outside of the courts.
bruce.owen@freepress.mb.ca
Rebroadcasts feared
“It is one thing for these details to be read out once and for everyone in the courtroom to hear them once and for the press to report on them and people to hear them on the news or read about them in the newspaper, or read them in the actual decision posted on a media website. People may even read them more than once.
“But once a broadcast of these reasons for decision being read by the court is obtained, there is the potential for rebroadcasting, including on the Internet, over and over again any time in perpetuity. We all know that Internet postings may not be effectively erased.”
— Provincial Court Judge Catherine Carlson in denying a media request for cameras in the courtroom for the today’s sentencing of Graham James