Court Appearances and Canadian Legal Terms

[Sillybilly]

I don't think it really matters who requests the ban. Defense often prefers a ban JMO

While it may not 'matter' in the long run, it is of interest who requests the PB (because the reasons behind such request will obviously be quite different); however, I was interested in how Carli's concerns about secrecy and lack of confidence in the system would apply if they thought the PB was requested by the defence ... or are those concerns only valid when being levelled against the Crown? IOW, had the defence requested the PB, would someone be accusing them of secrecy and creating a lack of confidence in the system?

 

[Tamarind]

While it may not 'matter' in the long run, it is of interest who requests the PB (because the reasons behind such request will obviously be quite different); however, I was interested in how Carli's concerns about secrecy and lack of confidence in the system would apply if they thought the PB was requested by the defence ... or are those concerns only valid when being levelled against the Crown? IOW, had the defence requested the PB, would someone be accusing them of secrecy and creating a lack of confidence in the system?

The point is, the crown may want to skip preliminaries to avoid divulging in an open court. To me this does not necessarily mean that they have a sealed deal. IMO. It could mean that they are hoping someone cracks and admits to anything (lesser plea) to get out. They could also be using stalling tactics to figure out the game-plan for trial, if there were to be a preliminary hearing their main theme(s) would need to be uncovered. Maybe they are not sure of their approach yet ? just a thought. Anything along these lines could be interpreted as being secretive don't you think? We can't really say otherwise without knowing more facts, and of course we don't have any.

The defense doesn't have to show it's hand as the onus is on the crown to prove their case, the defense can question at a preliminary but does not have to divulge anything at all. This being the case would mean that secrecy is not a factor for them, is it? I would think it was more a case of getting a fair trial for the client instead of tainting a possible jury. JMO

 

[swedie]

January 19, 2015

Smich and Millard were brought into a closed courtroom Friday for a judicial pretrial meeting. They had been scheduled to make an appearance in assignment court Jan. 23, but that has been cancelled.

Pretrial motions are to begin in the spring and will last six to eight weeks.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/5264073-clairmont-seasoned-judge-to-preside-in-bosma-murder-trial/

 

[swedie]

How to Prepare for a Judicial Pre-Trial Conference

This How–To Brief outlines the steps to take when preparing for a judicial pre–trial conference, from the review of disclosure to the completion of the pre–trial conference.

Step 1: Review the disclosure
Step 2: Make procedural decisions
Step 3: Complete the pre–hearing conference form
Step 4: Interview the client
Step 5: Attend the pre–hearing conference
Step 6: Complete follow–up tasks
Statutes and Rules

ETC...
http://www.lsuc.on.ca/For-Lawyers/M...-Prepare-for-a-Judicial-Pre-Trial-Conference/

 

[Alethea Dice]

Christina Noudga appeared in court Wednesday to waive her right to a preliminary inquiry, opting to go straight to trial.

She has elected to be tried by judge and jury.

She will appear back in court on March 20.

http://www.therecord.com/news-story/5343887-christina-noudga-heading-straight-to-trial-accused-of-being-accessory-after-the-fact-in-murder-of-t/

 

[swedie]

February 23, 2015

Tim Bosma trial judge to hold pre-trial hearing in-camera

Justice Stephen Glithero ruled on Monday that three days of pretrial motions — which are often subject to a publication ban, but usually conducted in public — will be in-camera, with neither the media or members of the public allowed in the courtroom.

Pretrial motions will continue at 10 a.m. on April 30 and again on May 1.

Millard, Smich and Noudga are all headed straight to trial, skipping a preliminary hearing. The trial for Millard and Smich is expected to begin in September.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamil...to-hold-pre-trial-hearing-in-camera-1.2968659

 

[swedie]

February 23, 2015

Mark Smich and Dellen Millard sat side by side in the prisoner's box, but Bosma's father was ordered by Justice Stephen Glithero to leave the court, along with a Bosma family friend, a homicide detective, a victim support worker and three journalists.

The Spectator asked for an opportunity to have its lawyer address the court to argue against the in camera session. Glithero said while The Spectator is welcome to do that, he would not wait.

"I will take my chances," he told The Spectator.

Glithero will be the trial judge for this case.

Leitch said it was Glithero who called for the appearance, and Glithero who wanted it to take place behind closed doors.

It is common for a publication ban to prevent media from reporting on details of pretrial motions. But it is extremely rare for the public to be excluded from the courtroom.

The Spectator intends to have its media lawyer address the court on that issue.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/5444701-family-press-barred-from-bosma-pretrial-motions/

 

[swedie]

February 23, 2015

Mark Smich and Dellen Millard sat side by side in the prisoner's box

Millard was brought into the courtroom first. He was wearing a collared shirt and grey suit jacket. He was clean shaven and his hair is now shoulder length and appears unwashed. He glanced carefully around the room, but did not have any supporters present.

Smich was wearing a black shirt with white stripes, his hair shaved almost bald. He sat down beside his co-accused without glancing at the body of the court.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/5444701-family-press-barred-from-bosma-pretrial-motions/

 

[swedie]

Pretrial Conference

A pretrial conference is a meeting of the parties to a case conducted prior to trial. The conference is held before the trial judge or a magistrate, a judicial officer who possesses fewer judicial powers than a judge. A pretrial conference may be held prior to trial in both civil and criminal cases. A pretrial conference may be requested by a party to a case, or it may be ordered by the court. Generally, the term pretrial conference is used interchangeably with the term pretrial hearing.
A pretrial conference may be conducted for several reasons: (1) expedite disposition of the case, (2) help the court establish managerial control over the case, (3) discourage wasteful pretrial activities, (4) improve the quality of the trial with thorough preparation, and (5) facilitate a settlement of the case.

More information at link.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Pretrial+Conference

 

[Tealgrove]

The judge cleared the courtroom saying that the matters they were going to discuss were "important" and "controversial". I understand the need for the press not to taint the proceedings by reporting certain things however, I am somewhat concerned about all the secrecy. I don't like it. I'm also surprised that both DM and MS were allowed to sit side by side since they have been doing their best to keep them isolated from each other and others.

http://www.thespec.com/opinion-stor...ma-family-press-barred-from-pretrial-motions/

 

[Tamarind]

The judge cleared the courtroom saying that the matters they were going to discuss were "important" and "controversial". I understand the need for the press not to taint the proceedings by reporting certain things however, I am somewhat concerned about all the secrecy. I don't like it. I'm also surprised that both DM and MS were allowed to sit side by side since they have been doing their best to keep them isolated from each other and others.

http://www.thespec.com/opinion-stor...ma-family-press-barred-from-pretrial-motions/

Section 28.05, of Superior court rules, in its entirety states that pre-trial hearings are to be behind closed doors, whether the accused has counsel or is unrepresented. I wonder if they have been overlooking this rule and finally decided to uphold it. Just a thought.

 

[Sillybilly]

The only specific reference to courtroom closed to the public is 28.05 (2) and 28.05 (1) states "subject to rule 2.01"

from:
http://lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SI-2012-7/index.html

28.05

General Nature of Pre-Trial Conference

28.05 (1) Unless otherwise ordered by the pre-trial conference judge under rule 2.01, a pre-trial conference in a case where all parties are represented by counsel, shall be conducted in a pre-trial conference room, judges’ chambers or other suitable room in the courthouse where a full and frank discussion of the issues raised in the proceedings may take place.

(2) Where any party is not represented by counsel, the pre-trial conference shall be held in a courtroom closed to the public.

(3) A pre-trial conference held under subrule (2) shall be recorded and the proceedings not published, broadcast or transmitted in any other way, except by order of the pre-trial conference judge.

(4) No transcript of any pre-trial conference held under subrule (2) shall be ordered by anyone without notice to all parties and the written approval of the pre-trial conference judge or another judge of the court.

(5) Where a transcript has been ordered under subrule (4), no information contained in it shall be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way without the approval of the pre-trial conference judge, on notice to all parties ....

2.01

Court May Dispense with Compliance

2.01 A judge of the court may only dispense with compliance with any rule where and to the extent it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so.

 

[Tamarind]

The only specific reference to courtroom closed to the public is 28.05 (2) and 28.05 (1) states "subject to rule 2.01"

from:
http://lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SI-2012-7/index.html

28.05



2.01

Precisely.

 

[ABro]

A pre-trial conference is not the same as pre-trial motions.

The Spec said this was likely pre-trial motions but it wasn't certain as the docket said "to be spoken to," which can mean anything.

The National Post reported the lawyers weren't wearing gowns, which they do at Pre-trial motions.

It's all very strange indeed.

 

[MsSherlock]

SC on Hamilton's 900 CHML : http://www.900chml.com/audio/ "The Bosma family and Press have been barred..."

SC states that she wasn't aware of this appearance and saw it on the docket while she was a court covering something else. It was not publicized.
Also of note is that it was requested by the Judge and not the Crown. She states that an in camera session may be necessary to discuss informants, solicitor client privilege. Also the fact that the April 30/May 1 sessions will be in camera as well. Kind of looks to me that the hopes were to get this in and out of court without anyone noticing. Wonder how HB knew about it. JMHO.

 

[ABro]

SC on Hamilton's 900 CHML : http://www.900chml.com/audio/ "The Bosma family and Press have been barred..."

SC states that she wasn't aware of this appearance and saw it on the docket while she was a court covering something else. It was not publicized.
Also of note is that it was requested by the Judge and not the Crown. She states that an in camera session may be necessary to discuss informants, solicitor client privilege. Also the fact that the April 30/May 1 sessions will be in camera as well. Kind of looks to me that the hopes were to get this in and out of court without anyone noticing. Wonder how HB knew about it. JMHO.

The CRown would inform the BOsma family.

 

[MsSherlock]

New date for TB murder trial :
"The original trial date was “vacated” and a new date set for Jan. 11, 2016. The Spec has previously reported the trial is expected last up to five months."
"The delay seems to be the result, in part, of a longer window for pretrial motions, which will continue on April 30 and May 1 and carry on again Sept. 28."

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2015/02/25/bosma-trial-delayed-to-early-2016.html

 

[Sillybilly]

Section 28.05, of Superior court rules, in its entirety states that pre-trial hearings are to be behind closed doors, whether the accused has counsel or is unrepresented. I wonder if they have been overlooking this rule and finally decided to uphold it. Just a thought.

Section 28.05 does not state it in its entirety ... only in 28.05 (2) as it relates to lack of representation.

I don't understand why you think this rule is being overlooked. Basically 28.05 (2) says the pre-trial conferences must be held behind closed doors if the accused does not have representation (which is not the case for DM and MS) ... for all other pre-trial conferences, they are open to the public unless closed at a judge's discretion under 2.01.

 

[Juballee]

Section 28.05 does not state it in its entirety ... only in 28.05 (2) as it relates to lack of representation.

I don't understand why you think this rule is being overlooked. Basically 28.05 (2) says the pre-trial conferences must be held behind closed doors if the accused does not have representation (which is not the case for DM and MS) ... for all other pre-trial conferences, they are open to the public unless closed at a judge's discretion under 2.01.

But isn't DM currently unrepresented officially?

 

[Sillybilly]

But isn't DM currently unrepresented officially?

Interesting Juballee ... apparently DP is not yet on record but he was there .. so maybe DM declined to have DP represent him or said he hasn't decided, and thus the unexpected, sudden order by the judge. Don't know how that might constitute of interest to the public or controversial though.