IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Transcription

1 Date: Docket: X Registry: New Westminster IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Oral Ruling The Honourable Mr. Justice Williams March 16, 2004 HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN AGAINST JEREMY WADE VOJKOVIC Counsel for the Crown: Counsel for the Defendant: Counsel for BCTV, Global, CTV P. Stabler; C. Giles G. Rideout; R. Swartzberg A. Foord [1] THE COURT: On.March 16, in anticipation of the disposition of this matter, I heard submissions in relation to an application brought by CTV seeking an order that: (1) The Registrar of the Court provide the applicants with access to, and an opportunity to copy and broadcast, the confession videotapes of the accused, Mr. Vojkovic, that were filed as exhibits during the transfer

2 HMTQ V. Vojkovic Page 2 hearing portion of this proceeding in the Port Coquitlam Provincial Court registry; (2) The Registrar of this Court provide the applicants with access to, and an opportunity to copy and broadcast, transcripts of the confession videotapes of the accused; and (3) The applicants will not broadcast any portion of the confession videotape or the transcripts until the completion of the sentencing portion of these proceedings against the accused. [2] In addition to the submissions of the applicant, I heard from Crown counsel and counsel for the defendant. The Crown takes no position in respect of the application. Counsel for the defendant advises that his client does not consent, which I take to be his position stated generally. [3] In a more specific vein, Mr. Rideout raised a concern with respect to the disclosure of the names of third parties. Additionally, he made clear that it would be his preference that his presence on the videotape and audiotape of the third interview not be released. [4] In support of the application was filed an affidavit of Mr. Faber, a television journalist. He deposes as to the substantial public interest in the events giving rise to this prosecution and his opinion that timely access to the subject materials will very significantly assist the purpose of the media in providing a complete, true and accurate report.

3 HMTQ v. Vojkovic Page 3 DISCUSSION [5] The general principles governing media access to documents and evidence before the court are clear and have been enunciated in a number of decisions, including A.G. (Nova Scotia) v. Maclntyre, (1982), 132 D.L.R. (3d) 385 (S.C.C.), Dagenais v. CBC, [1994) 3 S.C.R. 835, and R. v. Mentuck, [2001] 205 D.L.R. (4 th ) 512. The rule clearly favours public scrutiny of the court process and the participants' disclosure and openness. At the same time, there is a legitimate basis for the court to exercise a discretion against disclosure where it is necessary to prevent a serious risk to the proper administration of justice. That discretion is to be exercised sparingly, with proper consideration to the competing interests, and, where it is necessary, it should be no greater in scope or time than the circumstances necessitate. [61 In applications such as the one before the court now, reference is often made to the decision of Mr. Justice Trainor in B.C. (A-G) v. Pacific Press (1989), 41 B.C.L.R. (2d) 111 (S.C.). The court there reviewed a number of cases dealing with the issue and set out a very useful analysis of the relevant principles. [7] There have been, in recent times, a number of applications before the court that are strikingly similar to

4 HMTQ v. Vojkovic Page 4 the one at bar. I refer particularly to the decisions of Mr. Justice Oppal, as he then was, of this court in R. v. Driver, [1997] B.C.J. No (S.C.) and R. v. Ertmoed,(August 28, 2002), New Westminster Registry No. X059360,(B.C.S.C.) and the decision of Mr. Justice Lander in R. v. Stark, [1995] B.C.J. No (S.C.) [8] In the present matter, there were three interviews of the defendant conducted by the police investigation team. One was November 13, 2002, one was November 14, 2002 and the third was April 1, Each of these interviews was videotaped and I understand there may have been audio back-ups made, as well. In addition, transcripts, albeit it quite imperfect, were prepared. Those materials were filed at the transfer hearing in the Youth Court. [9] The defendant has, today, entered a guilty plea to the charge of first-degree murder and has been sentenced. DECISION [10] Having carefully considered the principles which apply, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to grant the application at hand and to order the release or dissemination of the tapes and transcripts. However, I am placing certain restrictions upon the release.

5 HMTQ v. Vojkovic Page 5 [11] The offender was 15 years of age at the time of the murder. In the statements, reference is made to a number of other persons whom I believe to be youths. For the most part, there is no reason to believe that their involvement was related to the commission of the offence. As well, there were the names of two or three other persons who, it might be contended, may have some complicity in the offence. As I understand, there are ongoing efforts to see if further investigational progress can be made, and those efforts may extend to those persons. [12] It is a principle of the youth justice legislation in Canada that there will be a protection of the privacy of young persons. Obviously, that protection has been foregone in the case of the defendant by virtue of the transfer order. However, with respect to other youths who have a connection or an involvement with this proceeding, that principle must be respected. [13] Accordingly, the order to be made here will be crafted to respect this principle, part of the proper administration of justice. As well, the name of the stepmother of the defendant, a person who does not have the same surname as the defendant and who is not materially involved in any way with

6 HMTQ v. Vojkovic Page 6 this offence, will not be subject of disclosure. Her name will be abbreviated to an initial. [14] For these reasons, there will be a condition placed upon the disclosure. I have reviewed each of the three tapes and the transcripts. The names of the persons whose identities are not to be disclosed have been obscured. Wherever those names appeared in the transcript, they-have been replaced by a letter designation; that is, there has been a letter code assigned to each of those names. It is the direction of the court that any dissemination of the disclosed material, that is, any subsequent publication of any audiotape, videotape or transcript, must be limited so that those names are replaced by the assigned initials, or, with respect to audio and video tapes, the names may simply be blanked out. [15] I am satisfied that this measure is appropriate in the circumstances, and I am further satisfied that by assigning initials rather than names, there will be no impairment of the ability of the media to meaningfully report the facts of the event. [16] With respect to Mr. Rideout's submission concerning his own name, there is no principled basis upon which to grant his application.

7 HMTQ v. Vojkovic Page 7 [17] If any party has any objection to the restriction that has been placed upon dissemination, there is liberty to bring the matter back before me. [18] Now, the transcripts have been altered in accordance with my ruling, the tapes have not. As I understand the application, it was to have the videotapes made available for copy and subsequent broadcast. The mechanics of that I will leave with the applicants. The transcripts are available at counter number one in the court registry. (EXCERPT CONCLUDED)