The spread of information, and the sheer speed at which it can travel, is raising issues which might be unintended and could potentially have larger reaching effects than anyone has anticipated before. For instance, when Facebook and Twitter were created, there was likely no indication that their existence could potentially complicate the legal process. However, in one case a rare ruling has been made to ban the public from proceedings, as it could potentially harm the ability for the defendant to be tried properly.
Dustin Paxton, 30, was charged with two counts of aggravated assault and one count of forcible confinement in August 2010 in connection with a long-running series of alleged attacks on a Regina man from December 2008 to March 2010. The allegations stemmed from the Regina man being dropped off at a hospital that March with serious injuries, which were said to be indicative of torture.
Given the nature of the crime, the case has already garnered a significant amount of publicity and the trial would be difficult at the best of times. This is no place to judge the guilt or innocence of the accused - that is what court is designed to do - but given the nature of the crimes, there will be difficulty getting a fair trial.
With that in mind, the public is being banned from the preliminary hearing. The logic behind it is that with the ease of which information can be distributed, someone could easily post comments about the preliminary hearing online, which could affect the jury pool and the chances of Paxton receiving a fair trial. The worry is that information prejudicial against the client could disseminate throughout the internet, which would make it difficult to get a jury which isn't coming in without some form of bias in the case. That's why his legal team asked for it, and that is why the judge granted it. Whatever you think of the man's innocence or public needs, on further thought, it might be a good thing.
The reason is simple, no matter what the crime, it is imperative that the accused has the best opportunity to defend themselves. There are two reasons for this, one is simply that there is a chance that the accused might not be the one who actually did the crime. I will not comment on whether or not that is the case in this trial, but that it is certainly a possibility in general. That leads into the second point, that if the accused is found guilty, there is less ground to stand on in attempts at appeal.
Court proceedings are expensive, and this is a very high profile case which will garner national attention. There has to be no doubt about whether or not this man is guilty in the crime, and as a result there also cannot be any doubt about whether the trial is as fair as possible. If it can be argued that the trial has been tainted by information spread online, it will be, which will lead to more lengthy court proceedings.
Yes, banning the public from a preliminary hearing might seem to be a restriction on freedoms and it might be a questionable solution to the problems. However, in this case and the others like it in the future, it might be necessary to ensure a fair trial. Given the amount of information spread already about this case, and the opinions people have about it, a fair trial is already difficult.
