|
Court
ordered publication bans | Rafay/Burns
| Christian Science Monitor
article | RCMP Big Boss
scenarios: National Post | RCMP
exporting illegal tactics to Australia | Scenario sting victims:
Clayton Mentuck | Atif Rafay and Sebastian
Burns | Kyle Unger |
Wilfred Hathway | Christine LePage | Gordon Strowbridge
| Jean Paul Aubee |
Publication
Bans (2001)
Court-ordered publication bans
significantly modified by Supreme Court
R. v. Mentuk, Nov. 15, 2001 Nov. 20, 2001: CBC
Disclosure piece featuring George Mentuk and Olivia Edgars tapes
(14 minutes) The program Disclosure has been cancelled and this
excellent video is no longer available online. Relevant
parts of judgment
The CBC reports on illegal
techniques used by police to elicit confessions. After spending
a year and a half in jail on a murder charge that was thrown
out for lack of evidence, George Mentuck became the focus of
a police sting to get him to confess to the same crime. Posing
as a gang, the police set Mentuck up with a house and had him
run small errands for them. When Mentuck again insisted on his
innocence, police offered up another scheme -- to which Mentuck
finally confessed. Once again a judge threw out the charge, saying
that Mentuck had no choice but to confess under the circumstances
the police engineered.
27738 HER
MAJESTY THE QUEEN v. CLAYTON GEORGE MENTUCK
Criminal - Criminal law - Publication
bans - Statutes - Interpretation - Jurisdiction - Limited publication
ban granted with respect to information identifying undercover
police officers - Publication ban denied with respect to police
operational methods - Whether this Court has jurisdiction under
Supreme Court Act s. 40(1) - Whether the trial judge erred
in refusing to grant the publication ban and in concluding that
the public interest in effective law enforcement was not a factor
to be considered in determining whether to grant the ban - Whether
the trial judge erred in failing to give proper effect to his
findings that the security and well being of the police officers
involved in this investigation would be subjected to bona
fide risk if they were identified.
In a trial that ended in a
mistrial due to a deadlocked jury on February 18, 2000, the Respondent
stood accused of the second degree murder of Amanda Cook on July
13, 1996 near Rossburn, Manitoba. On September 11, 2000, a third
trial commenced before a Queen's Bench Judge sitting alone. On
September 29, 2000, the Respondent was acquitted.
Part of the evidence against
the Respondent was obtained by virtue of a covert operation by
the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Before introduction of all
the evidence, the Appellant Crown brought a motion for a publication
ban covering print and the broadcast on television, film, video,
radio and internet of: (a) the names and identities of the undercover
police officers in the investigation of the Respondent, including
any likeness of the officers, the appearance of their attire
and their physical descriptions; (b) the conversations of the
undercover operators in the investigation of the Respondent to
the extent that they disclose the matters in "paragraphs
(a) and (c)" and (c) the specific undercover operation scenarios
used in the investigation of the Respondent.
As of February 2, 2000, the
officers involved in this case continued to be involved in covert
operations, and the Crown argued that if they were identified
in the media by name, photograph or general description, their
safety and well-being would almost certainly be jeopardized.
Menzies J. dismissed the application
with respect to the specific undercover operation scenarios used
in the investigation of the Respondent. However, he granted the
ban with respect to the names and identities of the undercover
police officers for one year from February 2, 2000. This ban
applied to the officers' likeness, the appearance of their attire,
physical descriptions or any other evidence that may tend to
identify the officers.
In this Court, the Appellant's
application to have exhibit "B" of the affidavit of
Randy Randell sealed and for a publication ban on the information
at issue pending decision on the leave application, and, if leave
is granted, pending decision on the appeal, was granted.
Origin of the case: Manitoba
File No.: 27738
Judgment of the Court of Appeal: February
2, 2000
Counsel: Heather
Leonoff Q.C./Darrin R. Davis for the Appellant
Timothy
J. Killeen for the Respondent
Disclosure Episode 2 (Nov.
20, 2001) Dirty Tricks?
The following is a transcript
of a report from CBC News: The National (broadcast
November 16, 2001)
Supreme Court rules on publication
bans
PETER MANSBRIDGE: Well, two
important decisions today about freedom of the media and publication
bans. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled just how much can
be reported about undercover police operations. The answer is
a lot. The CBC's Rick Boguski explains.
RICK BOGUSKI (Reporter): At
the Winnipeg Free Press, reporters are working on a story
the paper has wanted to publish for a long time, details of two
undercover RCMP operations that police hoped to keep secret.
But today, the Supreme Court of Canada said no.
NICHOLAS HURST (Editor, Winnipeg
Free Press): This is a great decision for Canada as a democracy.
BOGUSKI: Nicholas Hurst is
editor of the Free Press. His paper, as well as two others,
argued before the Supreme Court that the public has a right to
know. While the crown argued revealing such details would hurt
future investigations.
But the Supreme Court said
public scrutiny is better, that "police practices left unchecked
could erode the fabric of Canadian society and democracy".
The first case involved Clayton Mentuck. He was charged with
the murder of a fourteen year old Manitoba girl found beaten
to death in 1996.
In this video obtained by the
CBC program Disclosure, the police set up an elaborate
undercover operation in the hopes of getting a confession. They
posed as criminals, paying Mentuck and promising him more if
he would confess to the organization all the bad things he had
done. Three trials later, Mentuck with acquitted.
TIM KILLEEN (Mentuck's Lawyer):
In my view, the problem with this operation was that it was designed
to have him confess. It wasn't designed to get at the truth.
BOGUSKI: The second case involved
a fifteen year old BC runaway. Police believe she was responsible
for the murder of a Vancouver teen found dead beneath this bridge
in 1997. Again, police posed as criminals, promising her fifty
thousand dollars. That's if she could prove she was bad enough
to join them in crime. She, too, was acquitted. Her lawyer has
long believed the public should know exactly what police did.
PHIL RANKIN (Lawyer): I want
them to know, I want them to see how this young girl, fifteen
year old girl was completely manipulated into a false confession.
BOGUSKI: But those details,
RCMP insist, should never have been made public.
SERGEANT STEVE SAUNDERS (RCMP):
We still truly feel that once this is published throughout the
mass media, it will, in fact, put ongoing undercover investigations
at risk.
BOGUSKI: That's because these
types of sting operations are used over and over again by police.
Now the RCMP say they'll have to change their strategy. But whatever
they do, it's unlikely it will be much of a secret. The Supreme
Court says publication bans should be reserved for special cases.
The
Vancouver Sun v.Her Majesty the Queen, O.N.E., and The Attorney
General of Canada , Nov. 15, 2001
Publication bans: Criminal lawyers conference | The world is
watching. See the Chistian
Science Monitor
Justice
Mona Dovell's crazy ban:
she should
be embarrassed! (The Clifford Howdle trial in North Battleford)
Stinchcombe
More
of the reasons why reporting is so difficult | Perjury in
the Ahluwalia case | Rape
Shield Law abuse
Court scraps publication bans
By SUE BAILEY-- Canadian
Press, Thursday, November 15, 2001
OTTAWA (CP) -- Details of undercover police tactics
used to coax confessions from murder suspects in Manitoba and
British Columbia now can be published, the Supreme Court of Canada
says.
In two separate 9-0 judgments,
the court ruled Thursday that the Crown did not adequately show
how publication of those details would undermine the administration
of justice.
Only the identities of the
police officers involved in the cases are barred from publication
for one year, starting Thursday. The first case involves Clayton
George Mentuck, charged in the 1996 murder of Manitoba teen Amanda
Cook.
He was tried three times. The
first trial ended when the Crown stayed the charge after a judge
ruled that police overstepped themselves in the investigation.
Mentuck was released after
20 months in custody.
Undercover Mounties then attempted
to gather more evidence and Mentuck was subsequently charged
and tried again.
During the trial the Crown
asked for a ban on disclosing the identities of the undercover
policemen, their conversations with Mentuck and the techniques
they used.
Although the judge only banned
the media from identifying the police, nothing has actually been
published pending the outcome of the Supreme Court appeal.
The second trial ended in a
hung jury.
At a third trial before a judge
sitting alone, Mentuck was acquitted last year.
The Winnipeg Free Press and
the Brandon Sun challenged the publication ban and were supported
by Mentuck's lawyer, who said his client wants the public to
know why he was acquitted.
"It is in the public interest
to fully explore in the media the police conduct during the investigation
of this crime," defence lawyer Tim Killeen wrote in his
submission to the high court.
The federal government, along
with Manitoba, British Columbia and Ontario intervened in the
case, saying RCMP undercover tactics, which are used as a last
resort in cases across the country, must be kept secret.
Government lawyers argued that
police must be allowed to use every possible weapon in fighting
crime and must keep some of these weapons confidential.
The second case also involves
a murder and an acquittal.
A 15-year-old girl was charged
with the murder of another British Columbia teen after the RCMP
conducted an undercover investigation.
A sweeping ban on identifying
or describing the policemen, or reporting the conversations and
techniques they used, was requested by the Crown and approved
by the trial judge.
The Vancouver Sun applied for
a partial lifting of the ban but was refused.
After a trial by judge and
jury, the accused was acquitted last year.
Unlike most cases weighed by
the Supreme Court, these did not come up through an appeal court.
Current law prevents intermediate courts from reconsidering publication
bans, making the top court the only avenue for such challenges.
Dueck's notes
| Don Smith obscenity trial full
of irregularities |
|
Truth can never be
told so as to be understood, and not be believ'd. William Blake, The Proverbs of Hell