On October 4, B.C.’s attorney general, Shirley Bond, signed an order compelling Crown prosecutors to advocate placing television cameras and radio microphones during the trials of any criminal cases involving the Stanley Cup riot. Bond said that she issued the order because she believes there is a “public interest in ensuring this is a transparent, open process”.

Premier Christy Clark had the following to say about the issue: “Those guys had no problem doing their crimes quite in public. So I think that they should have no problem being tried in public.”

The criminal justice branch at first issued a statement that it would not ask prosecutors handling riot cases to advocate that the proceedings be broadcast. In response, Bond announced that she would invoke a rarely used power of her office to overrule the branch, through written directive under the Crown Counsel Act.

To hear the comments of the politicians, it sounded like the Stanley Cup riot trials would be held in secret rooms by shadowy figures and no one would ever know what the outcome was. This is not the case. All trials are open to the public. They’re already going to be conducted in a “transparent, open process”. All members of the public, including the press, are free to watch trials.

There are valid reasons why lawyers, both defence and Crown counsel, are against televising these trials. Samiran Lakshman, B.C. Crown Counsel Association president, makes the point that witnesses will be extremely reluctant to testify due to the anger and hatred slung at rioters caught on camera.

Allowing cameras in the courtroom is not a new issue in Canada. Advocates of cameras argue that most Canadians can’t attend court in person, TV is the main source of news for most people, witnesses will likely tell the truth when cameras are there, lawyers will be better prepared, televised trials educate the public, and the trial process would be more open to public scrutiny.

Opponents have the following concerns: witnesses would be reluctant to come forward if cameras are present, lawyers would grandstand, jurors would feel pressure, the media would focus on sensational cases, trial participants would be more stressed, and there would be an invasion of privacy in sensitive cases. One need look no further than the O.J. Simpson or Casey Anthony cases to see the kind of media circus and public frenzy that occur when sensitive cases are televised.

There have been cases televised in Canadian history, for example, R. v. Rodriguez, which considered whether Sue Rodriguez had the right to assisted suicide. Judges have control over their courtrooms and are the ones who properly have the power to make the decision to allow a camera on a case by case basis. That’s the way things should stay.

The media already picks and chooses what they report in order to generate viewer or reader interest. With televised trials, who’s to say that they would show the entire proceeding in the correct order, as opposed to cutting and pasting inflammatory testimony to paint a picture very different from the reality of the trial?

The people who participated in the Stanley Cup riot got caught up in a frenzied mob mentality and committed crimes against their own city regardless of the fact that they were being videotaped. In the aftermath, the general public has been afflicted with its own mob mentality, calling for swift, fierce justice regardless of the procedures put in place in the criminal justice system. As someone who was born and raised in Vancouver and who watched the video footage that night with unbelieving eyes, I also feel very strongly that those who committed those crimes should face the consequences of their actions, but only after being charged, tried, and convicted.

The politicians are caving under the public impression that justice isn’t being doled out as swiftly as it should be. This is simply another misguided tactic being used by the government to placate the public. What they’re really doing is further tying the hands of the players who actually work in the criminal justice system and potentially hurting the very trials they’re so eager to push through.

Reasonable Doubt appears on Straight.com on Fridays. The column’s writers, Laurel Dietz and Nancy Seto, are criminal defence lawyers at Cobb St. Pierre Lewis. You can send your questions for the column to them at straight.reasonable.doubt@gmail.com.

A word of caution: Don’t take this column as personal legal advice, because it’s not. It is intended for general information and entertainment purposes only.