Clear Full Forecast

Cameras In The Court Room - Really

By Ben Meisner

Friday, March 19, 2010 03:46 AM

The idea trotted out by Attorney General Mike de Jong of putting cameras in court rooms needs a tad of work and thought before he makes his next announcement.

As a lawyer he should be aware that in 90% of the cases where a ban on publication is sought in the courtroom,(thereby not allowing anyone to report on the events) that request comes from the Crown. Hate to break it to you Mike, that would be your employees.

If you follow the requests that are made by the Crown attorneys in this regard, you will see there are many requests that are doubtful at best, so before making any announcement about cameras in the court room a bit of direction should have been forthcoming from the Minister.

Alas there is more, this isn’t the USA, Mike, section 63 (6) of the Criminal Code makes it pretty clear that you cannot identify the members of a jury. Putting their picture up in lights while they sit through a trial is a contravention of the Criminal Code. Unless I have been sleeping at the switch that legislation rests with the federal government.

Then there is the matter of the young offender.  Can't televise that trial, so if we need to be more open and transparent a little knowledge about what you can and can’t do would be in order before a visit before the TV cameras. Making a comparison of US courts to Canadian law and courts shows a lack of knowledge of how the two systems work.

But hold it, there is more. How would the Attorney General of the province handle the matter of MP Rahim Jaffer, who, after being pulled over for Cocaine possession, drunk driving and speeding has the other charges dropped in favour of a careless driving fine? A deal in Ontario, but never the less a deal by guess who?  Yup, the Crown.

Can you see the cameras rolling on this one?  More over, can you see the cameras rolling in BC courts in which routinely  we have a Crown prosecutor rising along with the Defence counsel to inform the Judge that they have "reached a deal" and  this is the "sentence" that ,”they deem” appropriate . That will make for good viewing, and remember Mike, the people doing the deals are your employees.

Perhaps we should turn the cameras on, but be careful what you wish for.

I’m Meisner and that’s one man’s opinion.


Previous Story - Next Story

Email Email | Print Print | Share on Facebook Facebook | Tweet! Twitter | Digg Digg | Del.icio.us Del.icio.us

Posted on Friday, March 19, 2010 03:46 AM in Views by Ben Meisner

Return to Home
NetBistro

Comments

Comment Posted by: apoliticalgeek on March 19 2010 7:00 AM
I'm amazed that Rahim Jaffer's case has not lreceived more press.

Getting caught drunk, speeding and with cocaine on your person is enough to get the death penalty in other countries. Here in Canada if you have a spouse who's a Cabinet minister it gets you a 500.00 fine and a discharge? Kinda makes you wonder about the 'leftist' fifth estate, doesn't it.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/rahim-jaffer-pleads-guilty-to-careless-driving/article1494775/

“I'm sure you can recognize a break when you see one” the judge told Mr. Jaffer.

“I'm sorry. I know this was a serious matter,” Mr. Jaffer said afterward outside the court. “I know I should have been more careful and I took full responsibility for my careless driving.”

But not being a drunk and a coke-head?
Comment Posted by: PrinceGeorge on March 19 2010 7:58 AM
I would love to see some of these trials on TV, like the Jaffer thing for instance! The jury would not be shown (like in the O.J. Simpson trial - we never got to see the jury) and the faces of young offenders are off limits.

It would be interesting to see how the arguments from prosecutors and defense lawyers are made and how verdicts are reached.

A picture can be worth a thousand words.

The final details need to be worked out, that's for sure.

In my opinion Mr. de Jong's idea is a good one!
Comment Posted by: ammonra on March 19 2010 8:52 AM
If he really is serious, then why not have a trial :-) run during the BC Rail corruption trial. I would love to see every nuance of information and evidence presented during that.
Comment Posted by: Andyfreeze on March 19 2010 9:13 AM
There may never be a B.C.Rail trial ammonra.
I am betting it gets turfed out considering the time limit involved,but it would be interesting to watch.
Jaffer is just another example of how much favoritism is given to dirty politicians.
And cameras in the courtroom would be fine,great even,but who decides what we see and what we don't?
A judge of course and we know where that will go!
I don't believe we will see very much of any importance!
Comment Posted by: BC Mary on March 19 2010 11:35 AM
Sufferin' Pete,

What's with people? Why leap into action shooting ourselves in the foot then reaching around and blamming ourselves in the back of the head? Seriously.

Here we get a break. Two breaks.

1) The BC Rail corruption trial is laid on for May 3, 2010. Be there. And it's a lot easier to be there, if the trial is televised.

2) BC Supreme Courtroom #20 has already been up-graded and fully fitted with cameras and such, for the Air India Case.

So all we need to do is ASK for the BC Rail Trial to be broadcast ... in which case every citizen in every corner of BC will be able to follow the proceedings on the parliamentary channel (also already set up) hour by hour, day by day. And make up their own minds as to how something so big and so valuable slipped out of THEIR hands and into private pockets.

And that's a great thing when you consider that BC citizen-viewers once owned BC Rail.

It's no time for shrinking back, wringing our hands. It's time to be contacting the Attorney General with a message: YES, Cameras switched ON in BC Supreme Courtroom #20 on May 3, 2010.
.
Comment Posted by: Brian Skakun on March 19 2010 12:10 PM
Nothing wrong with cameras in the court room with a few exceptions in my opinion. Sexual assault trials, in partuclar testimony of the victims should not be televised.

In my upcoming court case I would more than welcome cameras.


Regards Brian Skakun
Comment Posted by: Eagleone on March 19 2010 2:17 PM
I can see camera's in the court used to intimidate plaintiffs when used, and abused by crown by limiting its use in cases that involve politics (ie BC Rail) and securities corruption in the stock markets.

What we really need is more court reporters and not more camera's in the courts. Who decides what gets televised otherwise?
Comment Posted by: Andyfreeze on March 19 2010 5:01 PM
Agreed Eagleone!
Comment Posted by: BC Mary on March 19 2010 6:55 PM
Does anyone have problems with cameras in the BC Legislature during debates?

Same approach.

It's more fair to televize the proceedings than to have only a handful of people able to travel to Vancouver and sit in the public gallery day after day.
Comment Posted by: greatmysticbushape on March 19 2010 8:28 PM
yeah and the verdict should be supplied by the voters.
Comment Posted by: Slim2229 on March 20 2010 7:28 AM
Having worked in the system for a few years I think it would be a great idea. Some lawyers would actually have to start thinking before they spew the rhetoric of how their client was misguided and unfortunate prior to being charged. It might just wake up some of the Clown counsel too. The biggest point would be to help the public understand exactly why judges have to come to the decisions they have to make because higher courts have set the rules for them.