Stanley Cup Riot Trials
October 5, 2011 by staff
Stanley Cup Riot Trials, British Columbia attorney general has formally addressed the crown lawyers to judges to allow cameras in their rooms, where those accused of joining the fray explosive riots of the Stanley Cup are on trial.
Shirley Bond to Tuesday to exercise its power of impact BC Supreme Court proceedings, despite earlier comments Criminal Justice opposed to the hearings on television.
In the rare previous occasions when the cameras have been allowed to transmit in a BC courtroom, which was after a media outlet has made the request.
On Tuesday, the government pledged in her speech from the throne to force the opening of the trials of persons to be charged in connection with the June 15 melee where cars were burned and looted dozens of stores.
Critics immediately suggested inviting the public to tune the legal drama in prime time was a trick to get eyeballs, the political equivalent of boosting ratings.
“I do not think it is embarrassing to all audiences,” Bono told reporters on Tuesday.
“I think it is an event that shocked all of British Columbia and beyond, and I think there is a public interest in this is a transparent, open.”
Bonds acknowledged the public position of the branch, but said he had the authority to direct the lawyers to pay attention to the wishes of the government.
“We’re not suggesting that we want to jeopardize any judicial process,” he said.
“And remember that the final decision is taken by the judge presiding over the trial.”
Formal guidelines were created in a. JC in 2001, when outlining the TV cameras be allowed in the courtrooms and restrictions should be placed on them.
The last time the issue arose in the a. JC courts in a case examining the law of polygamy in Canada, the Crown lawyer argued strongly against the media to transmit any part of the audience.
Premier Christy Clark reiterated on Tuesday that he wants the trial to air due to the eruption of violence in targeted downtown Vancouver British Columbia’s sense “of security.
“I think it’s important to be televised, since, as I said, those guys had no trouble committing those crimes with camera flashes and video shoot,” he said, referring to the many onlookers who withdrew her digital equipment with reporters.
Criminal Justice Branch spokesman Neil McKenzie did not immediately return calls for comment.
Vancouver police have said they expect to charge over time hundreds of people in relation to the turbulent melee, although researchers are still building the case. Forty people initially expected by the end of this month, the force has said.
The Supreme Court of Canada is the only court in the country that regularly transmits the proceedings. Several other courts have allowed cameras in rare instances after a request to the judge.
The most common arguments against setting up cameras to target if the presence of the electronic lens deter the participation of witnesses, violate privacy or threaten the safety of the accused.
The back line of thinking is that these trials are of great importance and interest to people, many of whom may not have easy access to court proceedings otherwise public. Television promotes open courts.
“But that does not seem to be the reasoning that is being proposed for this application of the first,” said Vancouver-based criminal attorney Eric Gottardi Monday, reacting to the throne speech.
It just seems that Clark is trying to influence the courts for low-level crimes that happen to bells with ordinary citizens, disgusted, he said.
“In fact there seems no clear reason why these processes should be given this level of government attention or special treatment in any way.”
NDP critic Leonard Krog opposition agreed to the search for transparency in justice is worth, but said there was no justification for airing the judgments of disturbance than any other.
“You do not get to choose on the basis of their need to increase the popularity of its policy,” said Monday, adding the costs of prosecution would also increase.
But the lawyer Dan Burnett, who represents several media, said he was pleased with the decision and hopes that the trials are in the air, so they can serve as an example of the benefits of broadcasting in the courts.
“Every time this occurs there is always the norm,” Oh, the lawyers stand, oh, be intimidated witnesses, “he said.
“And those are the arguments you need to address as to whether or not materialize. Not often. I think people need to see that.”
Please feel free to send if you have any questions regarding this post , you can contact on
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this site are that of the authors and not necessarily that of U.S.S.POST.