This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
|
Justice Sopinka wrote for a unanimous court in this appeal from the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench on a case in which a Criminal Code section 486 publication ban was overturned by the trial judge, Justice Feehan, after he had found the primary witnesses for both sides of a sexual assault trial to be unreliable.
| R v Adams | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Hearing: 1995: October 6; Judgment: 1995: December 21. | |
| Citations | R. v. Adams, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 707 |
| Docket No. | 24252 [1] |
| Holding | |
| Encouraging victims to come forward and complain facilitates the prosecution and conviction of those guilty of sexual offences. Ultimately, the overall objective of the publication ban ...is to favour the suppression of crime and to improve the administration of justice. | |
| Court membership | |
| Reasons given | |
| Unanimous reasons by | The Court |
Feehan J. considered as policy reasons in favour of lifting the publication ban that:[2]
... this woman went into the beer parlor as a predator, and this fellow says he lost $900. I didn't make that as a finding of fact, but he says he lost $900. ... Don't we owe society a duty to tell the next person that goes into that beer parlor for a beer and maybe also looking for a prostitute, that this is a dangerous one[?]
The Crown applied for leave to appeal directly to the Court from the order of the trial judge, pursuant to s. 40(1) of the Supreme Court Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. S-26. Mootness was raised by the respondent, and discarded by the court; In any event, even if the appeal were moot it would exercise discretion to hear the appeal. Jurisdiction of this issue was confirmed, and the Supreme Court reinstated the publication ban. Sopinka quoted approvingly Justice Lamer in Canadian Newspapers Co. v. Canada (Attorney General):
Encouraging victims to come forward and complain facilitates the prosecution and conviction of those guilty of sexual offences. Ultimately, the overall objective of the publication ban ...is to favour the suppression of crime and to improve the administration of justice... A discretionary ban is not an option as it is not effective in attaining Parliament's pressing goal.
References edit
- ^ SCC Case Information - Docket 24252 Supreme Court of Canada
- ^ canlii.org: "R. v. Adams, (1995) 4 SCR 707, 1995 CanLII 56 (SCC)"