Secrets and mysteries in court

Not only will the media ask us to reveal more about this case, as the Chief Justice of the Court of Quebec and the Attorney General of Quebec have also instructed lawyers to intervene in court.

The methods promise to be full of pitfalls, shrouded in closed-door orders and redacted documents that generate the most speculation and theory.

On March 23, the Court of Appeal issued a halt to proceedings that resulted in the acquittal of a police informer accused of a crime not specified in the verdict. First mystery.

Still oddly, the judgment reported the overall opacity of this case during the trial for the first time.

But can we talk about a trial if we know that the witnesses were not heard in court, but were questioned outside? And that the judge, or perhaps the judge, read the transcripts of testimony to convict?

The jury? Second mystery.

Then we stop counting them, because there are so many.

There is no record of this test

We don’t know in which judicial district this case took place, or who the lawyers were involved, or what it was about, even in general.

The only information emerging from the conviction was that the accused was a police informant, whose identity clearly must be protected for security reasons, who, during the investigation, found himself accused of a crime.

The Court of Appeal, in giving its judgment on the stay of the proceedings, was surprised at the holding of this secret hearing, in which no clue […] exists except in the memory of the individuals involved.

Three more judges it is exaggerated and contrary to basic principles of our justice system.

In the days following the revelation of this secret daily trial The Pressthe entire judicial community is shouting out loud.

Quebec’s Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Simon Jolin-Barrette, said he was concerned about the situation, violated the rules of public hearings, and filed a motion with the Court of Appeal.

The same day, Quebec Court’s chief justice, Lucie Rondeau, filed one to get more information about this non -existent trial in her court’s archives. He urges the judge in charge of this trial to reveal himself. We can guess that this is a case heard by the Court of Quebec. It is not known if the judge reported to his chief judge.

The media is also asking for the sealed documents to be made public.

How can the public evaluate the administration of justice if they are unaware of future cases in the courts?

The arguments of Me Christian Leblanc and Me Julien Meunier, who represent press companies, would certainly be more solid, but this principle is the basis.

Even viewers will be enveloped in mystery

The course of Monday’s session provides that each party has 45 minutes to present its arguments, which requires commendable conciseness.

But the hearing has its share of mystery and secrecy and Monday’s session will not allow any major revelations. Although the media, the QMP and the Chief Justice of the Court of Quebec will speak to the public, this will be on the principles guiding the courts in matters of public hearings.

Once the parties have met the facts, i.e., the secrecy surrounding this case, a closed session will be ordered and everyone will have to withdraw.

Remaining in the room, in addition to the judges hearing the debate, will be Judge Rondeau’s attorney and the Crown officials and the police informant.

Why would Judge Rondeau’s lawyer plead with closed doors? What does he know that the other party does not know? Isn’t everything sealed and redacted?

We can only speculate.

The Chief Justice probably found out some details, which he certainly shared with his lawyer, and should be kept secret.

The mystery is still.

Crown attorneys and attorneys for the police informant even obtained permission to participate in the session and a second closed session anonymously. Away and via videoconference, but no photo, only audio, and with modified voices.

Lawyers are clearly concerned that disclosure of their identity could lead to the identity of the police informer.

However, they canceled their participation on Thursday, indicating in the Court of Appeal’s registry that their technical services were not put in place the technology necessary to maintain the anonymity of the parties and do so in a safe manner.

Really annoying if a malicious cyber-hacker is able to infiltrate the audience!

In conclusion, this will take place largely unseen and the public will eventually be informed of the decisions of the Court of Appeal regarding requests to know more about this secret file.