— Global Edmonton (@GlobalEdmonton) September 13, 2016
…Given all of that, it’s hard to see how anything is threatened by allowing a camera in court to broadcast the ruling. That hasn’t, however, stopped the crown prosecutor in the case from making some strange arguments against the application.
Ashley Finlayson says he’s worried about “the floodgates” being opened if the application is approved, but any future application would still be at the discretion of that particular judge and the circumstances of that case.
Finlayson also suggested that the video of the judge’s summary could be taken out of context, but the same could be said of any piece of reporting from the trial, or any particular aspect of the case that a citizen chooses to watch in person or read about after the fact. It’s absurd to argue that the public is better served by reduced access to the justice system.
It’s probably exceedingly rare that members of the public seek out and read entire judges’ decisions, even when those cases are high profile. Yet, clearly the public has an interest in these decisions, and we should err on the side of facilitating greater access to them.
This isn’t unchartered territory, either. Supreme Court cases have been broadcast for years. Two years ago, Manitoba launched a pilot project to allow cameras in courts. Their approach would be to reverse the onus, so that arguments would have to be presented to keep cameras out, not the other way around.
The rest here.
We also discussed the issue recently with Paula Simons from the Edmonton Journal: