Trial Side-Normandeau: journalists forced to testify behind closed doors?

File PHOTO, DIDIER DEBUSSCHÈRE
Me Jacques Larochelle

Jean-Luc Lavallée

Thursday, 1 march 2018 17:00

UPDATE
Thursday, 1 march 2018 17:00

Look at this article

The lawyer of Marc-Yvan Côté asked the superior Court to consider the possibility of making a witness of the journalists in camera in order to identify the perpetrators of the leaks “damaging” to his client.

“It is something that should be considered. Before prohibiting the interrogation, the judge must ask the question: “Can I afford it with restrictions?””, let go of Me Jacques Larochelle at oral argument, Thursday, at the palace of justice of Quebec.

After a first setback in the Court of Québec recently, the lawyer defending the ex-liberal cabinet minister and ex-leader of the firm Roche has addressed to the superior Court in hope to overturn the decision of the judge of first instance. This approach fits within the framework of a request for a stay of proceedings on the leaks from the media which has not yet been decided and would not be may not be when the trial will begin on April 9 next.

Mr. Larochelle holds stubbornly to interview Marie-Maude Denis (Radio-Canada) and Louis Lacroix (Cogego and The News) in the hope of identifying their sources at the base of news stories about Marc-Yvan Côté and Nathalie Normandeau, who were accused of fraud, conspiracy, corruption and breach of trust. It seeks to know the rank of the moles to determine the responsibility of the State.

Origin of the leaks at the UPAC

The lawyer for the defense argued that the leaks have been orchestrated in the highest echelons of the UPAC, while the Crown claims that they are probably the work of a lone wolf or a “ripou” within the police force. The police investigations have not enabled us to find the origin of leaks.

The opportunity to hear the two journalists behind closed doors – in the presence of the judge and the lawyers only – had never been raised in the first instance. The issue was raised on Thursday by judge Jean-François Émond during an exchange with mr. Larochelle regarding the new criteria for the application of the federal law on the proof, which was strengthened last fall to protect journalistic sources.

“I would have had to talk about it. I just realize,” agreed mr. Larochelle. “It is a question that we must ask. The first judge was not asked the question. I don’t know what would the result have been if it had been pleaded. Is it that he would have to do at least this end of the road? May-be”, wondered aloud the famous litigant.

A disclosure in camera would have the merit, according to him, to limit the harm or prejudice to the journalists targeted, as the identity of the sources would not necessarily be known to the general public. The lawyer acknowledged, however, that the information provided does remain may not be confidential at the end of the year. “We don’t know what we’ll hear. If it tells us: “My source is Mr. [Robert] Lafrenière”, listen, there, it’s going to take it out!”

Not the camera, say the media

For the lawyer of the two journalists, mr. Christian Leblanc, there is no doubt that the consequences of disclosure of sources – behind closed doors or not – would be the same for journalists and their sources.

“Once the toothpaste is out of the tube, one cannot hand it in”, he illustrated. Not only the approach would jeopardise the public’s right to information, he argued, but it would result in a breach of confidence between journalists and whistleblowers. “A journalist who comes to reveal his or her sources, it is done. We will no longer speak to a journalist.”

Judge Jean-François Émond took the matter under advisement. Prosecutors in the folder hoping that it will make its decision quickly since the judge André Perreault, who needs to hear the trial of Mr. Côté and Ms. Normandeau in Quebec Court, had announced its intention to dispose of the motion in arrest of proceedings on 26 march.