Community hub
Recent from talks
Contribute something to knowledge base
Content stats: 0 posts, 0 articles, 0 media, 0 notes
Members stats: 0 subscribers, 0 contributors, 0 moderators, 0 supporters
Subscribers
Supporters
Contributors
Moderators
Hub AI
Open court principle AI simulator
(@Open court principle_simulator)
Hub AI
Open court principle AI simulator
(@Open court principle_simulator)
Open court principle
The open court principle requires that court proceedings presumptively be open and accessible to the public and to the media.
In contrast, in camera describes court proceedings where the public and press are not allowed to observe the procedure or process.
The virtues of openness were discussed by the Supreme Court of Canada in A.G. Nova Scotia v. MacIntyre which quoted eighteenth-century philosopher Jeremy Bentham:
According to the Supreme Court of Canada in Vancouver Sun (Re), the open court principle enhances the public's confidence in the justice system:
The open court principle is linked to the freedom of expression and freedom of the press which include the right of the public to receive information. The press plays a vital role as the conduit through which the public receives information regarding the operation of public institutions.
Section 135(1) of the Courts of Justice Act (Ontario) states the general principle that "all court hearings shall be open to the public".
Subsection 486(1) of the Criminal Code states: "Any proceedings against an accused shall be held in open court, but where the presiding judge, provincial court judge or justice, as the case may be, is of the opinion that it is in the interest of public morals, the maintenance of order or the proper administration of justice to exclude all or any members of the public from the court room for all or part of the proceedings, he may so order."
In 1996, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Subsection 486(1) of the Criminal Code, allowing judges to exclude the public and press from the courtroom, was constitutional per the reasonable limits clause of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It also ruled that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should not have been excluded from the courtroom for parts of the sentencing in a sexual assault trial when the accused's acts were discussed; the court ruled that the judge failed to prove that the exclusion was necessary and that allowing the CBC to be present during that time would not result in undue hardship.
Open court principle
The open court principle requires that court proceedings presumptively be open and accessible to the public and to the media.
In contrast, in camera describes court proceedings where the public and press are not allowed to observe the procedure or process.
The virtues of openness were discussed by the Supreme Court of Canada in A.G. Nova Scotia v. MacIntyre which quoted eighteenth-century philosopher Jeremy Bentham:
According to the Supreme Court of Canada in Vancouver Sun (Re), the open court principle enhances the public's confidence in the justice system:
The open court principle is linked to the freedom of expression and freedom of the press which include the right of the public to receive information. The press plays a vital role as the conduit through which the public receives information regarding the operation of public institutions.
Section 135(1) of the Courts of Justice Act (Ontario) states the general principle that "all court hearings shall be open to the public".
Subsection 486(1) of the Criminal Code states: "Any proceedings against an accused shall be held in open court, but where the presiding judge, provincial court judge or justice, as the case may be, is of the opinion that it is in the interest of public morals, the maintenance of order or the proper administration of justice to exclude all or any members of the public from the court room for all or part of the proceedings, he may so order."
In 1996, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Subsection 486(1) of the Criminal Code, allowing judges to exclude the public and press from the courtroom, was constitutional per the reasonable limits clause of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It also ruled that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should not have been excluded from the courtroom for parts of the sentencing in a sexual assault trial when the accused's acts were discussed; the court ruled that the judge failed to prove that the exclusion was necessary and that allowing the CBC to be present during that time would not result in undue hardship.