The trial, the existence of which was first reported by the French online newspaper La Presse on Friday, is referred to only as “File X”. The case was conducted undercover with the approval of the Crown Prosecutors, the presiding judge and the defense attorney. Where and when the trial took place, along with the names of the accused and the presiding judge, have been deliberately excluded from the public record. No witnesses were called to the podium: they were interviewed outside the courtroom and a copy of their testimony was presented to the court. The case did not have a case number and was never filed in the provincial court records. It was never done on paper. The trial came to light only because the accused chose to appeal against the verdict, pointing the case to the Quebec Court of Appeal, which in turn made its decision public.
“Unthinkable” to violate the established rules
Elfriede-Andrée Duclervil, a Montreal-based legal aid lawyer who has worked in many high-profile cases, said it was “unthinkable” that a lawyer would agree to go to trial in this way. “Our judicial system is based on standards of transparency and transparency in court proceedings, and this case was completely the opposite. Quite the opposite,” he said. Longtime criminal lawyer Jeffrey Borough said he too was “surprised” that the court’s rules, “established centuries ago, could be ignored in minutes.” “Such things should never, ever happen,” Boro said. Elfriede-Andrée Duclervil, a Montreal-based legal aid lawyer who has worked in many high-profile cases, said the secret trial undermined the core values of the judiciary. (Ivanoh Demers / Radio Canada)
The Backroom deals with the informant
The decision of the Court of Appeals, which was released on Wednesday, is heavily modified, but it makes it possible to collect some of the facts of the case. Secrecy is said to protect the identity of the accused, who worked as an informant in an unnamed local police station. It appears that the police met with the informant several times, including in the hotel rooms and in the back of the vans. However, the police claimed that they never guaranteed immunity for the informant, who was later charged with a role allegedly played in the unknown crime. The secret trial was then held and the informant was found guilty. The defendant appealed against the decision, claiming that he had been granted immunity. At that stage the case came to the attention of the Quebec Court of Appeals judges, who chose to issue their decision in public, with all the identification details blacked out. “In the opinion of the Court, after the examination of the file, this way of procedure was excessive and contrary to the fundamental principles that govern our judicial system,” the decision of the Court of Appeal states. The decision by the Quebec Court of Appeals was made public on Wednesday – albeit a very modified one. (Quebec Court of Appeal)
The principles of justice are being violated
Asked by reporters about the secret trial on Friday, Quebec Justice Minister Simon Jolin-Barrette said he had just learned of the case and had not yet commented. Duclervil, the legal aid lawyer, said the right to an open court was not absolute, but said there were less “extreme” ways to protect one’s identity, such as a ban on publication, for example. “We do not even see such cases when it comes to national security, terrorism and so on,” he said. Ducklerville said open proceedings are the key to maintaining public confidence in the system and in administering justice. “I think the public has a right to be concerned that criminal cases are being conducted in such an environment. We cannot have such a system,” he said. “This exception to the exception is unacceptable.”
