Tried in complete secrecy

The Court of Appeal condemns the conduct of a criminal investigation in which “no trace”

Vincent Larough
Press

On an extraordinary trip, the Court of Appeal is concerned that all traces of the recent secret criminal investigation in Quebec have been destroyed. A person would be convicted of a crime that is secretive within the framework of a process that is “contrary to the fundamental principles of justice” and “inconsistent with the values ​​of liberal democracy.”

Mystery police information

In a heavily censored public edition of their decision released on Wednesday, Quebec Court of Appeal judges Mary-France Bitch, Martin Wagler and Patrick Healy called the case “Dasier X”. Magistrates give some details, but indicate that this is a mysterious police informant (or an informant: her gender is not specified).

This person had a “verbal agreement” to cooperate with experienced police officers in a criminal investigation. After revealing to investigators that there was a crime, he would have been charged with the crime, which appeared to be in violation of the terms of his contract with the police. In which area did this case take place? When? Which police force was involved? What were the allegations? To this day the public has no right to know.

Memories, but no traces

According to the Court of Appeals, the attorneys for the police informant agreed with the Crown attorneys, contrary to the basic rules of the justice system that should be public, to keep the trial of the “Dosier X” case secret. The parties wanted to protect the identity of the informant so that his life would not be threatened by the perpetrators.

According to the Court of Appeal, the parties would have decided to hold a “secret hearing” to be held in a “complete and completely closed session”. A judge somewhere in Quebec (whose name is also kept secret) would have agreed. The share of businesses run by the court will not be on file in the official list. Witnesses are said to have been interrogated outside the court, and a transcript of their comments is then submitted to the judge “in the context of a covert trial.”

That file was not recorded in the register and even the verdict convicting the accused did not contain any file number that would make it possible to search the archives at the end of the trial.

“In short, there is no trace of this trial other than the memory of the persons involved,” the appellate court judges explained.

Shared concerns

The Court of Appeal eventually found the case to exist because the police informant was found guilty in the first instance and appealed his sentence.

“The appeal file has been opened in parallel to the usual procedure. The trial was held in complete secrecy, ”the appellate court said in a statement.

It was then that the judges discovered that the case had been decided for the first time in an unusual way. The creation of three judges of the High Court in Quebec did not diminish its words in the face of this finding. “This practice is exaggerated and contrary to the basic principles governing our justice system,” they write.

They point out that a similar case discovered many years ago in British Columbia has caused great concern in that province. “These concerns are shared,” the Quebec judges say.

Adjust the shot

The Court of Appeal decided to rectify the situation. Realizing the importance of protecting the identity of the accused, he ordered the opening of an actual file in the registry related to the file number that would formalize its existence.

He decided on the appeal, which finally outlined the outside of the case, while auditing the name of the informant, the type of charge, the dates, the locations and the names of the attorneys and the trial judge.

Mysterious police have overturned the sentence of the informant and ordered a halt to legal action against him.

The Minister has requested an inquiry

“This is shocking, unacceptable, unthinkable. We know this information because the case has been appealed. Without an appeal, we know nothing. Now the question arises: how many more are there? The Minister of Justice deserves to be investigated,” he said.^And Elfriede-Andrée Duclervil, a Montreal legal assistant lawyer who has worked on a number of high-profile cases, said publicity of actions was an issue.

“If we want some defendants to be protected, there are other ways to do it. There, we’re talking about a phantom file in the first instance. For the judiciary to review, you need a file number, records. There, we have nothing!”, He notes, Youth In the room, we manage to protect the identity of minors without resorting to such arrangements.

On Thursday evening, the office of Justice Minister Simon Jolin-Barrett declined to comment on the file. “The general nature of the procedures is fundamental within the justice system. However, in certain circumstances, exceptional measures must be taken,” said Elizabeth Kozellin, a press official.

The question of life or death

Martin Valois, an associate professor of law at the University of Montreal, emphasizes that we need to understand the concerns of those who become police informants and fear that their role will be exposed. “It becomes a matter of life or death for people,” he says.

But the professor underlines that above all, some basic standards must be respected.

The importance of general testing

“We can not overstate the importance of the policy of publicity of legal actions in the country”, and the Court of Appeals underlined the judgment on “File X”.

The three judges underlined that a public process allows people to ensure that Quebec conducts genuine, fair trials and that “crime is not the origin of a pre-determined trial.” A public hearing is the only opportunity for the accused to make his or her view public, the court added, adding that certain personal information can be protected in defiance of all means such as release bans and closed orders.

In collaboration with Louis-Samuel Barron, Press