https://www.canlii.org/en/commentary/doc/2017CanLIIDocs166#!fragment//BQCwhgziBcwMYgK4DsDWszIQewE4BUBTADwBdoByCgSgBpltTCIBFRQ3AT0otokLC4EbDtyp8BQkAGU8pAELcASgFEAMioBqAQQByAYRW1SYAEbRS2ONWpA
Microsoft Word - Word_rr_English.doc Victim Privacy and the Open Court Principle Jamie Cameron, Professor of Law Osgoode Hall Law School Policy Centre for Victims Issues Research and Statistics Division rr03-VIC-1e March 2003 The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Justice Canada. Victim Privacy and the Open Court Principle Executive Summary This Report analyzes the tension between victim privacy and the open court principle, and especially in the context of sexual assault proceedings. It explains that the open court principle is one of the most highly prized values in t he Anglo-Canadian common law tradition. Not only has the jurisprudence under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms reinforced this value, it has set more onerous requirements for exceptions to the open court principle to meet. The Report provides an analysis of open court’s transition from common law to constitutional principle. Historically, the victims of crime have not played a central role in a trial process that is conceptualized as a bipolar contest between the state and the accused. Even before the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was adopted in 1982, however, the status of victims had begun to improve. The law relating to sexual offences was one area in which reforms were most forcefully sought, and most frequently secured as a result. Though statutory measures had taken some steps in this direction, protecting the privacy of victims was not recognized, at common law, as one of the permissible exceptions to open court’s twin elements of access and publicity. Almost exclusively in the context of sexual assault proceedings, the status of crime victims changed radically under the Charter. Albeit in the context of conflict between the rights of the accused and the complainant, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized a right of victim privacy under s.7 of the Charter, and placed it on an equal plane with the defendant’s right of full answer and defence. The Report views this as a critical development because of the importance of linking the privacy concerns which arise at different times and for differe nt reasons in sexual assault proceedings. The open court jurisprudence weighs the salutary benefits of protecting victim privacy against the deleterious consequences of derogating from open court. The invasion of privacy elsewhere in the process, and the steps that have been taken to address it, may influence the judiciary’s perception of proportionality in contests between victim privacy and open court. The Report adds perspectives from other jurisdictions and provides a discussion of the values which are at stake when victim privacy is set against open court. In doing so, it raises but does not answer the question whether victim privacy, and the need for anonymity in particular, is justified by the nature of the offence, or should instead be regarded as a remedial measure to address the chronic under reporting of sexual offences and encourage victims to trust the system. In essence, the question is whether these offences are different and should, from a privacy perspective, always be treated differently. An alternative approach would treat sexual assault victims differently, but only for the time being, and because the unfair treatment they have suffered in the past has not yet been eliminated. ii Acknowledgements The author would like to thank Sean Sells for his research assistance on this project. Others who contributed are Sabina Han, Kenn Lui, Angela McLeod, and Adrian Savin. The author also thanks Lynne Fonseca for her assistance with the manuscript. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary Acknowledgements Chapter One Introduction..............................................................................................1 Chapter Two The open court principle and the Charter .................................................7 Chapter Three Victim privacy, sexual assault and the Charter ...................................... 24 Chapter Four Comparative, transnational and international perspectives ...................... 40 Chapter Five Perspectives ........................................................................................... 55 Chapter Six Conclusions............................................................................................ 71 Chapter Seven Bibliography .......................................................................................... 75 Endnotes ................................................................................................ 92 1 Chapter One Introduction Privacy may be an ancient concept that is linked in fundamental ways to the dignity and integrity of individuals, but it is a relative newcomer to the law just the same. Though aspects of property and defamation law, as well as some rules of evidence, are related to it, privacy, until recently, lacked status as an independent right or concept. At l east in the North American tradition, the development of a legal entitlement began with a watershed article, written in 1890, by Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis. Their perception of excesses by the American press prompted Warren and Brandeis to dema nd that privacy be recognized and protected by the law. In one of their more colourful passages the authors of “The Right to Privacy” described the pathology of what they saw, as follows: The press is overstepping in every direction the obvious bounds o f propriety and of decency. Gossip is no longer the resource of the idle and the vicious, but has become a trade, which is pursued with industry as well as effrontery. To satisfy a prurient taste the details of sexual relations are spread in the columns of the daily papers. To occupy the indolent, column upon column is filled with idle gossip, which can only be procured by intrusion upon the domestic circle.1 Warren and Brandeis argued that the “intensity and complexity of life” rendered “some retreat from the world” necessary at the same time that “modern enterprise and invention” created new ways and means of invading privacy. The result, they concluded, was that individuals could be subjected to mental pain and distress “far greater than could be in flicted by mere bodily injury”. 2 The inventions Warren and Brandeis had in mind included typewriters, which were introduced to newsrooms in 1876, telephones which dated to the early 1880s, and news photography which arrived in 1897.3 More than one hundred years later, privacy as a legal concept has evolved in a number of directions, especially in the United States, where it is a viable cause of action in the law of tort. Today, modern enterprise and invention have developed sophisticated broadcast and electronic technologies which dramatically accelerate the possibilities for the invasion of privacy. Not only that, the media promotes a culture of publicity which thrives on the details of private lives, whether the object of attention is a celebrity, a public figure, or an unlucky individual whose life has taken a turn which can be sensationalized for profit. There can be no doubt that the victims of crime are among those who are unwillingly thrown onto the public stage. While leaving larger questions about the privacy from unwanted media attention to another time and place, this study focuses on the privacy of crime victims, and of complainants in sexual assault proceedings, in particular. “The history of criminal justice is almost synonymous with the decline of the victim’s influence.”4 Historically, the common law treated the victims of crimes as witnesses, not as parties to criminal proceedings. Though the victim initiated proceedings as the prosecutor in the 2 earliest days, the foundations of modern criminal justice were laid when the state undertook that responsibility in the name of the victim and the community at large. From then on, the central elements of the criminal trial, which was conceived as a contest between those accused of offences and the state, began to evolve. Over time, substantive principles, rules of evidence, and procedures which protected the defendant’s right to a fair trial would offset the considerable powers, advantages and resources the state enjoyed in prosecuting those accused of crime. How the frequently competing interests in law enforcement and due process should be calibrated is an issue of ongoing adjustment and debate. Thus, it could be expected that those accused of criminal offences would be key beneficiaries when constitutional rights arrived in Canada, some twenty years ago. Today, the process of adjusting the balance between law enforcement and fairness to the accused is channelled, for the most part, through the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.5 Meantime, the victims and witnesses who were participants in criminal trials were not only visible to the public but were often the objects of sympathy as well. Still, as third parties, they lacked status or standing in the system, in their own right. As LeSage A.C.J.O explained, in The Queen v. Bernardo: Historically, there was a period when all crimes were personal to the victim. Over the years, the criminal law evolved toward a recognition that crimes are transgressions of societal order and values. This evolution continued until we reached a point where the state interest appeared to be total and the individual victim was given little recognition. The only recognized interest, at that point, was the broader interest of the state.6 The Crown could not secure convictions without the assistance