For much of September, The Leader has not run a normal-length page on court proceedings – and not for lack of interest or effort. There have been a number of publication bans in place, in some weeks covering every case on the docket.

And readers have noticed. Some have asked why there were no court stories despite knowing proceedings had taken place.
Publication bans exist to protect important interests, such as the privacy of victims and witnesses or the fairness of a trial. But limiting what can be reported can have consequences of its own.

For a community newspaper, court reporting isn’t merely about satisfying curiosity. It tells residents when criminal allegations have been brought, what those allegations are, and how the justice system is handling them.

Canadian law starts with the principle that court proceedings are generally open to the public, but judges can restrict what may be published. Bans can protect victims and witnesses, particularly in sexual-offence cases, and can restrict the publication of evidence or other information.

The problem is that sometimes those details are central to understanding a case, leaving a report with so little information that it provides little value. The Leader has every intention of following publication bans and all other court restrictions. But that means there will be times when readers may feel they are being left in the dark about cases before the justice system.

That is an unavoidable consequence of protecting legitimate privacy and trial-fairness interests. But it is also why open courts and responsible court reporting remain important.

The Supreme Court of Canada has described open courts as the general rule and recognized that openness helps maintain public confidence in the justice system.

In smaller communities like those served by The Leader, people may hear rumours about a criminal case. Responsible reporting can replace those rumours with verified information about what has actually happened, while respecting the presumption of innocence and any restrictions imposed by the court.

There is also a legitimate public interest when allegations concern conduct that could potentially affect other members of the community. Residents may reasonably want to know that such a matter is before the courts.

That does not mean publishing prohibited information or declaring someone guilty. A newspaper may still be able to report on a case, but whether a story with key information omitted actually serves the public is another question.

Publication bans have a purpose and should not be eliminated. But they should remain exceptions to the principle of open justice, rather than becoming a routine barrier between the justice system and the public it serves.