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

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. [6]

Sherman Estate v. Donovan

In 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on the side of the estate of Barry and Honey Sherman to restrict public access to court documents to protect the dignity of the Sherman family. Showing that privacy concerns, including dignity, may necessitate an exception to the open court principle. [7]

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. [7] These proven cases include matters of maintaining personal dignity, [7] terrorism offences, [6] and protecting the privacy of minors. [8]

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”. [9]

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.” [10]

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. [11]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Guantanamo military commission</span> U.S. military tribunals

The Guantanamo military commissions were established by President George W. Bush – through a military order – on November 13, 2001, to try certain non-citizen terrorism suspects at the Guantanamo Bay prison. To date, there have been a total of eight convictions in the military commissions, six through plea agreements with the defendants. Several of the eight convictions have been overturned in whole or in part on appeal, mostly by U.S. federal courts.

<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 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") is the section of the Constitution of Canada that lists what the Charter calls "fundamental freedoms" theoretically applying to everyone in Canada, regardless of whether they are a Canadian citizen, or an individual or corporation. These freedoms can be held against actions of all levels of government and are enforceable by the courts. The fundamental freedoms are freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association.

Canadian constitutional law is the area of Canadian law relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Canada by the courts. All laws of Canada, both provincial and federal, must conform to the Constitution and any laws inconsistent with the Constitution have no force or effect.

<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.”

<i>Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v Canada</i> 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.

<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 addresses the actions and operations of governments and governmental agencies in Canada. That is, the law concerns the manner in which courts can review the decisions of administrative decision makers such as a board, tribunal, commission, agency, or Crown minister, while exercising ministerial discretion.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Robert Pickton</span> Canadian serial killer

Robert William "Willy" Pickton is a Canadian serial killer and former pig farmer. He is suspected of being one of the most prolific serial killers in Canadian history.

A Gladue report is a type of pre-sentencing and bail hearing report that a Canadian court can request when considering sentencing an offender of Aboriginal background under Section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code.

<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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Russell Brown (judge)</span> Canadian Supreme Court Justice (born 1965)

Russell S. Brown is a puisne justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. He was nominated by Prime Minister Stephen Harper to replace outgoing justice Marshall Rothstein and has been serving in the role since August 31, 2015. Prior to his appointment to the Supreme Court, he was a justice at the Alberta Court of Appeal, and before that a law professor at the University of Alberta.

<i>Guindon v Canada</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Guindon v Canada, 2015 SCC 41 is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the distinction between criminal and regulatory penalties, for the purposes of s.11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It also provides guidance on when the Court will consider constitutional issues when such had not been argued in the lower courts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Human Rights Tribunal of Quebec</span>

The Human Rights Tribunal of Quebec is a specialized first-instance tribunal of the province of Quebec, Canada, that has the jurisdiction to hear and judge litigations concerning discrimination and harassment based on the prohibited grounds stipulated in the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, as well as concerning the exploitation of elderly or handicapped persons and affirmative action programs.

<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".

<i>Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd v Ontario</i> 2005 Supreme Court of Canada case

Fish J. wrote a unanimous verdict for the Court, rejecting Crown contentions that the investigative procedure ought to be withheld from public view, in this case of insalubrious slaughter of cattle at the Aylmer Meat Packers plant in Toronto. In fact, the scandal that ensued had a part in changing the leadership of the province.

Madam Justice Renu Mandhane is a Canadian jurist and lawyer who was appointed a judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Brampton) on May 22, 2020.

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.

R v Ipeelee is a Supreme Court of Canada decision which reaffirmed the court's previous holdings in R v Gladue, in that when sentencing an Indigenous person, every sentencing judge must consider: (a) the unique systemic or background factors which may have played a part in bringing the particular Indigenous individual before the courts; and (b) the types of sentencing procedures and sanctions which may be appropriate in the circumstances for the person before the court because of their particular Indigenous heritage or connection.

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. 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)
  7. 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.
  8. ↑ Miedema, T. (2017). "Openness and transparency". University of Toronto Exhibits. Retrieved 2023-06-01.
  9. ↑ "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)
  10. ↑ "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)
  11. ↑ "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.