In an hour-long slice of reality Internet Wednesday, a Manitoba judge made provincial history with his unprecedented streamed broadcast of a verdict in a second-degree murder case.
The province’s judges said it marked their commitment to electronically opening up courtrooms and letting justice be seen to be done.
In B.C., their judicial counterparts have mouthed such intentions for a generation while dragging their feet and thumbing their noses at transparency.
It’s been a year since the B.C. Court of Appeal streamed arguments in the right-to-die legal battle as a proposed pilot project; nearly three years since the B.C. Supreme Court televised the polygamy constitutional question as a similar experiment.
At the turn of the century in Victoria, that court allowed cameras to record part of the trial of nine South Korean men accused of human smuggling as a so-called pilot project.
Gee, 14 years later and you still can’t watch even the dull-as-dishwater B.C. Court of Appeal proceedings?
Hard to believe there’s a Supreme Court of Canada channel on the TV.
Politically, our lawmakers are no better than the judges — talking the talk about the importance of openness while refusing to walk the walk and take on the hidebound bench.
Premier Christy Clark promised to televise the trials of Stanley Cup rioters — didn’t happen.
Former attorney general Mike de Jong wanted to cameras in courthouses in Vancouver, Victoria and Kamloops to televise sentence hearings, as Manitoba did Wednesday — fat chance.
A dozen years ago, in 2001, there were calls to televise former premier Glen Clark’s trial …
But you get the picture — oh, that’s right, you don’t.
B.C. residents can use the Web to watch dramatic moments of Oscar Pistorius’s murder trial in South Africa, proceedings from across the U.S., English appeals, but forget about getting a glimpse at what’s happing inside justice’s glass ziggurat in downtown Vancouver or courtrooms across the province.
Manitoba’s Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Shane Perlmutter acquitted Cassandra Knott on Wednesday of second-degree murder for stabbing her husband to death in 2011.
OK, it was less riveting than the Blade Runner’s trial.
There was only one locked-off camera focused on the judge; I only wish we could have seen the accused as well — seen the relief pour over her, seen her begin to wail and hug her defence lawyer Gerri Wiebe as she realized she would go free.
Still, this was an excellent case to emphasize why we need cameras in our courtrooms — it raised issues of battered women’s syndrome and spousal violence that are serious public concerns.
With his hour-long decision, Perlmutter provided a textbook lesson in how such complicated and emotionally charged issues are parsed by the law.
Perlmutter emphasized that in spite of the horrific violent background of the couple, Knott was not guilty not because she was a battered woman but because of the unique facts of the slaying.
She killed her husband in self-defence not because she suffered from any syndrome.
It was illuminating — exactly why justice should be seen to be done.
“Court must be open to the public,” Manitoba Chief Justice Richard Chartier told reporters.
“This principle is a hallmark of democratic society and has long been recognized as a cornerstone of the common law — so says the Supreme Court of Canada, so say we. That is the law.”
The Supreme Court of Canada has allowed cameras to record its proceedings since the last century.
There is no basis in law for excluding modern technology from the courtroom, and there is no reason for B.C. citizens to be kept in the dark about what happens in their courtrooms.
Now if only B.C. judges would follow the law and enter the 21st century.