Quebec's justice minister wants answers about 'phantom' trial

Quebecjustice minister Simon Jolin-Barrette says is he concerned about a trial that was held in secret and that he wants information about the proceedings to be made public.

The "phantom trial,"which involveda police informant, was held entirely in secret and kept off the official court docket.

Its existenceonly became public knowledge because the police informant accused in the case appealed his or her conviction, and the appeals court issued a heavily redacted ruling in late February critical of the lower court proceedings, which was first published by La Presse.

Jolin-Barrette said in a statement late Wednesday that the leadership of the Quebec court and Superior Court share similar concerns about the case. He said that while he doesn't have details about what happened, hehas been told Quebec Crown prosecutors weren't involved.

Meanwhile, federal prosecutors are also distancing themselves from the case.

The Public Prosecution Service ofCanada(PPSC), which oversees federal prosecutions, released a statement Thursday afternoon, saying it "does not initiate prosecutions in secret and does not conduct secret trials, even in matters involving an informer."

The heads of major Quebec newsrooms, including CBC,penned an open letter Wednesdaystating their indignation and deep concern over the secret trial.

"It is unacceptable that such a trial could take place in Quebec without the public even being advised of its existence, let alone in which court it took place and the identities of the judge and lawyers involved,'' the letter said, which was addressed to the chief justices of the Quebec court, Superior Court and Court of Appeal.

'No trace' of trial

In a decision date Feb. 28, a three-member Court of Appeal panel wrote the initial trial was "contrary to the fundamental principles that govern our justice system.''

Its ruling noted that the case had no docket number, that witnesses were questioned outside the courtroom and that "no trace of this trial exists, other than in the minds of the individuals implicated.'' The date of the trial was kept secret, as were the location of the alleged crime and the police force involved.

"It cannot be overstated the importance of the open court principle in this country,'' Court of Appeal Justices Marie-France Bich, Martin Vauclair and Patrick Healy wrote in the introduction to their ruling.

"The court is of the opinion that if trials must protect certain information disclosed therein, a procedure as secret as the present one is absolutely contrary to modern criminal law and to the respect of the constitutional rights not only of the accused, but also of the media, and it is equally incompatible with the values of a liberal democracy,'' they added.

Federal Justice Minister David Lametti initially put out a statement Wednesday, sayinghe wasrelieved that the Quebec Court of Appeal was looking into the matter but that he could not comment further on the case because of the publication bans in place.

But in brief comments to reporters Thursday afternoon, Lamettireaffirmed that the justice system must be transparent.

"Certainly, I believe in the open court principle and I'm concerned by what I'm hearing and what I'm reading," he said.

"Like everyone else, I am bound by an order of the Quebec Court of Appeal," hesaid.

Province wants answers

Jolin-Barrette said he has asked prosecutors to ask the Court of Appeal to make at least some information aboutthe casepublic, such as the identity of the judge and lawyers involved and the orders delivered.

Jolin-Barrette told the legislature on Wednesday that the basic principle in democracy is that justice be done in full public view.

"Justice must be rendered publicly and it is not acceptable for such a situation to occur,'' Jolin-Barrette said during question period.

He said there are certain "exceptional circumstances'' where publication bans or other orders are needed, but he said they must be balanced with criteria outlined in the Criminal Code.

He said he wouldn't comment further on the case because the period during which an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada can be made has not expired.