Open court principle

Last updated

The open court principle requires that court proceedings presumptively be open and accessible to the public and to the media. [1]

Contents

In contrast, in camera describes court proceedings where the public and press are not allowed to observe the procedure or process.

Canada

Purpose

The virtues of openness were discussed by the Supreme Court of Canada in A.G. Nova Scotia v. MacIntyre which quoted eighteenth-century philosopher Jeremy Bentham:

In the darkness of secrecy, sinister interest and evil in every shape have full swing. Only in proportion as publicity has place can any of the checks applicable to judicial injustice operate. Where there is no publicity there is no justice. Publicity is the very soul of justice. It is the keenest spur to exertion and the surest of all guards against improbity. It keeps the judge himself while trying under trial. [2]

According to the Supreme Court of Canada in Vancouver Sun (Re) , the open court principle enhances the public's confidence in the justice system:

Public access to the courts guarantees the integrity of judicial processes by demonstrating "that justice is administered in a non-arbitrary manner, according to the rule of law". Openness is necessary to maintain the independence and impartiality of courts. It is integral to public confidence in the justice system and the public's understanding of the administration of justice. Moreover, openness is a principal component of the legitimacy of the judicial process and why the parties and the public at large abide by the decisions of courts. [3]

The open court principle is linked to the freedom of expression and freedom of the press which include the right of the public to receive information. The press plays a vital role as the conduit through which the public receives information regarding the operation of public institutions. [4] [5]

Canadian legislation

Section 135(1) of the Courts of Justice Act (Ontario) states the general principle that "all court hearings shall be open to the public".

Subsection 486(1) of the Criminal Code states: "Any proceedings against an accused shall be held in open court, but where the presiding judge, provincial court judge or justice, as the case may be, is of the opinion that it is in the interest of public morals, the maintenance of order or the proper administration of justice to exclude all or any members of the public from the court room for all or part of the proceedings, he may so order."

Canadian jurisprudence

CBC v New Brunswick AG

In 1996, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should not have been excluded from the courtroom for parts of the sentencing in a sexual assault trial when the accused's acts were discussed. The court ruled that the judge failed to prove that the exclusion was necessary and that allowing the CBC to be present during that time would not result in undue hardship. [6]

Vancouver Sun (Re)

In 2004, the Vancouver Sun newspaper successfully argued that certain court proceedings in relation to the Air India terrorist attack should be open to the public. Section 83.28 of the Criminal Code allows the exclusion of the public and media from certain court proceedings in relation to terrorism offences. [7]

Sherman Estate v. Donovan

In 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled against the estate of Barry and Honey Sherman finding the risk to the important public interest in privacy, on the facts of the case was not serious. [8] Showing that privacy concerns, including dignity, may necessitate an exception to the open court principle. [9]

Limits on the open court principle in Canada

The Supreme Court of Canada has made clear that a trial should only have a closed court in cases where closing the court is in the public interest. [9] These proven cases include matters of maintaining personal dignity, [9] terrorism offences, [7] and protecting the privacy of minors. [10]

United States

In the United States, the term "in open court" means the appearance by a party or their attorney in a public court session such as during a trial.

United Kingdom

The open court principle has long been recognized as a cornerstone of the common law. In its 1913 decision in Scott v. Scott, the House of Lords noted the right of public access to the courts is “one of principle ... turning, not on convenience, but on necessity". Viscount Haldane L.C., noted that “Justice is not a cloistered virtue”. [11]

In the 1936 decision of Ambard v. Attorney-General for Trinidad and Tobago, Lord Atkin noted “Publicity is the very soul of justice. It is the keenest spur to exertion, and the surest of all guards against improbity.” [12]

Ukraine

Since 2014, Ukraine has allowed videotaping of court sessions without obtaining the specific permission of the judge, within the limitations established by law. In 2015 the Open Court Project launched with the aim of videotaping court proceedings in civil, commercial, administrative cases. The Open Court Project has videotaped over 7000 court cases in courts at different levels. The videos are stored, indexed and published in the public domain.

In 2017 NGO Open Ukraine has launched the VR Court Project aimed at videotaping court sessions with 3D 360 degree portable video cameras to create VR video records of court sessions. [13]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Canadian Grain Commission</span> Canadian government agency

The Canadian Grain Commission is an agency of the Canadian government responsible for regulation of the grain-handling industry in Canada, as well as to protect producers' rights and ensure the integrity of grain transactions.

Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a constitutional provision that protects an individual's autonomy and personal legal rights from actions of the government in Canada. There are three types of protection within the section: the right to life, liberty and security of the person. Denials of these rights are constitutional only if the denials do not breach what is referred to as fundamental justice.

<i>Delgamuukw v British Columbia</i> 1977 Supreme Court of Canada case

Delgamuukw v British Columbia, [1997] 3 SCR 1010, also known as Delgamuukw v The Queen, Delgamuukw-Gisday’wa, or simply Delgamuukw, is a ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada that contains its first comprehensive account of Aboriginal title in Canada. The Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en peoples claimed Aboriginal title and jurisdiction over 58,000 square kilometers in northwest British Columbia. The plaintiffs lost the case at trial, but the Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal in part and ordered a new trial because of deficiencies relating to the pleadings and treatment of evidence. In this decision, the Court went on to describe the "nature and scope" of the protection given to Aboriginal title under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, defined how a claimant can prove Aboriginal title, and clarified how the justification test from R v Sparrow applies when Aboriginal title is infringed. The decision is also important for its treatment of oral testimony as evidence of historic occupation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ian Binnie</span> Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada from 1998 to 2011

William Ian Corneil Binnie is a former puisne justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, serving from January 8, 1998 to October 27, 2011. Of the justices appointed to the Supreme Court in recent years, he is one of the few appointed directly from private practice. On his retirement from the Court, he was described by The Globe and Mail as "arguably the country's premier judge", by La Presse as "probably the most influential judge in Canada of the last decade" and by the Toronto Star as “one of the strongest hands on the court.”

Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects against unreasonable search and seizure. This right provides those in Canada with their primary source of constitutionally enforced privacy rights against unreasonable intrusion from the state. Typically, this protects personal information that can be obtained through searching someone in pat-down, entering someone's property or surveillance.

<i>New Brunswick Broadcasting Co v Nova Scotia (Speaker of the House of Assembly)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

New Brunswick Broadcasting Co v Nova Scotia (Speaker of the House of Assembly) is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision wherein the court has ruled that parliamentary privilege is a part of the unwritten convention in the Constitution of Canada. Therefore, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms do not apply to members of Nova Scotia House of Assembly when they exercise their inherent privileges of refusing strangers from entering the House.

<i>Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v Canada</i> 2000 Supreme Court of Canada case

Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v Canada (Minister of Justice) [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1120, 2000 SCC 69 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on freedom of expression and equality rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It was held that the Customs Act, which gave broad powers to customs inspectors to exclude "obscene" materials, violated the right to freedom of expression under section 2 but was justifiable under section 1; however the Customs Act must be read to place the onus of proving obscenity on the state, not the importer.

<i>Prostitution Reference</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Reference re ss. 193 & 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code (Man.) [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1123, commonly known as the Prostitution Reference, is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the right to freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and on prostitution in Canada. Manitoba's Appeal Court had ruled the legislation violated the guarantee of freedom of expression in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, by constraining communication in relation to legal activity. The case was referred to the Supreme court.

<i>R v Mills</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Mills, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 668 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision where the Court upheld the newly enacted rape shield law when challenged as a violation to section 7 and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The rape shield law was the second of its type, the first having been struck down in R. v. Seaboyer. Accordingly, this case is often cited as an example of judicial dialogue.

<i>R v Wong</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Wong, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 36, is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the evidence obtained by electronic video surveillance conducted without authorization. The Court held that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a hotel room. This expectation does not depend on whether those persons were engaging in illegal activities. Therefore, individuals can expect that agents of the state will not engage in warrantless video surveillance. Electronic surveillance without authorization violates Section Eight of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, for this particular case, the Supreme Court held that the police acted in good faith and had reasonable and probable ground to believe criminal activities were committed. The surveillance without authorization was a result of misunderstanding. Hence, acceptance of the surveillance as evidences will not bring the administration of justice into disrepute under Section Twenty-four of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Privacy Act is the federal information-privacy legislation of Canada that came into effect on July 1, 1983. Administered by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, the Act sets out rules for how institutions of the Government of Canada collect, use, disclose, retain, and dispose of personal information of individuals.

Section 14 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the last section under the "Legal rights" heading in the Charter. It provides anyone in a court the right to an interpreter if the person does not speak the language being used or is deaf.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Canadian administrative law</span> Law governing the government agencies of Canada

Canadian administrative law is the body of law "that applies to all administrative decisions, whether issued by front-line officials, ministers, economic regulatory agencies, or administrative tribunals, with interpretations of law and exercises of discretion subject to the same. .. rules." Administrative law is concerned primarily with ensuring that administrative decision-makers remain within the boundaries of their authority and observe procedural fairness.

The passage of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982 allowed for the provision of challenging the constitutionality of laws governing prostitution law in Canada in addition to interpretative case law. Other legal proceedings have dealt with ultra vires issues. In 2013, three provisions of the current law were overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada, with a twelve-month stay of effect. In June 2014, the Government introduced amending legislation in response.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Joseph Arvay</span> Canadian lawyer (1949–2020)

Joseph James Arvay, was a Canadian lawyer who argued numerous landmark cases involving civil liberties and constitutional rights.

<i>Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v United Steelworkers</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v United Steelworkers, 2013 SCC 6, arising from the Ontario courts as Re Indalex Limited, is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that deals with the question of priorities of claims in proceedings under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, and how they intersect with the fiduciary duties employers have as administrators of pension plans.

In Canadian administrative law, judicial review is for courts to ensure "administrative decision-makers" stay within the boundaries of the law. It is meant to ensure that powers granted to government actors, administrative agencies, boards and tribunals are exercised consistently with the rule of law. Judicial review is intended as a last resort for those seeking to redress a decision of an administrative decision maker.

<i>CBC v New Brunswick AG</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. New Brunswick [1996] 3 SCR 480 was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada concerning the open court principle.

<i>Vancouver Sun</i> (Re) Supreme Court of Canada case

Re Vancouver Sun is a leading Supreme Court of Canada case regarding the open court principle, freedom of the press and publication bans. The open court principle is the "right of public access to the courts".

Criminal sentencing in Canada is governed by the Canadian Criminal Code. The Criminal Code, along with the Supreme Court of Canada, have distinguished the treatment of Indigenous individuals within the Canadian Criminal Sentencing Regime.

References

  1. ↑ "A.B. v. Bragg Communications Inc., [2012] 2 SCR 567, 2012 SCC 46". Paragraph 11: Supreme Court of Canada. September 27, 2012. Retrieved 19 November 2016.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  2. ↑ "R. v. C.B.C. et al., 2013 ONCJ 164 (CanLII)". CanLii.org. Para. 13. Retrieved 27 December 2017.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  3. ↑ "Vancouver Sun (Re), [2004] 2 SCR 332, 2004 SCC 43". www.canlii.org. Paragraph 24: Supreme Court of Canada. Retrieved 19 November 2016.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  4. ↑ "Vancouver Sun (Re), [2004] 2 SCR 332, 2004 SCC 43". Paragraph 26: Supreme Court of Canada. Retrieved 19 November 2016.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  5. ↑ "R. v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 2010 ONCA 726". Paragraph 24: Ontario Court of Appeal. Retrieved 19 November 2016.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  6. ↑ "CBC v. New Brunswick". Global Freedom of Expression. Retrieved 2025-01-16.
  7. 1 2 "Vancouver Sun (Re), [2004] 2 SCR 332, 2004 SCC 43". Paragraph 16: Supreme Court of Canada. Retrieved 19 November 2016.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  8. ↑ https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/18914/index.do
  9. 1 2 3 Goldenberg, Adam; Ashrafi, Taraneh (2021-06-14). "Supreme Court of Canada rules that the open court principle may be limited to protect privacy, but only in exceptional circumstances | McCarthy Tétrault". www.mccarthy.ca. Retrieved 2023-06-01.
  10. ↑ Miedema, T. (2017). "Openness and transparency". University of Toronto Exhibits. Retrieved 2023-06-01.
  11. ↑ "Vancouver Sun (Re), [2004] 2 SCR 332, 2004 SCC 43". www.canlii.org. Paragraph 24: Supreme Court of Canada. Retrieved 19 November 2016.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  12. ↑ "Vancouver Sun (Re), [2004] 2 SCR 332, 2004 SCC 43". www.canlii.org. Paragraph 24: Supreme Court of Canada. Retrieved 19 November 2016.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  13. ↑ "Courtroom photography and broadcasting", Wikipedia, 2019-09-17, retrieved 2019-09-28
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.