The B.C. Supreme Court has again given the back of its hand to public interest by refusing to allow a camera into the groundbreaking trial over medicare.
The case is a hugely important constitutional challenge involving the delivery of medical services in B.C. and the role private clinics should play.
Everyone should be able to follow the proceedings, not just those who can physically get to the Vancouver Law Courts and find a seat in the court, where it was standing room only on the first day.
But Justice John Steeves on Friday said privacy concerns led him to ban cameras even though some witnesses might want publicity and the expert testimony would be of great interest and important for the public to know.
In his view, I guess, individual medical stories aren’t suitable material for public consumption unless they are in print.
“It is apparent from the material presented to me so far the individuals are going to testify about very personal decisions they have made about their health,” he explained. “I conclude the very personal matters are not an appropriate topic for full recording and presentation to the public through the media.”
Steeves said that if some witnesses allowed their names and medical histories to be televised and others did not, that also would create a distorted view of the proceedings.
The justice did not inquire if the media could protect identities and address the privacy concerns.
He used the same excuse to block the recording of testimony from doctors, government officials, historians and policy specialists.
“I accept there may well be policy issues raised by the experts that the public would be interested in and that would be important for the public to know,” he conceded.
“However, some of this evidence will also include reference to individual names of patients and, again, their very personal medical care. I considered whether certain expert evidence could be recorded because it does not appear now to involve individual medical histories. However, the presentation of evidence is a dynamic process and, for example, cross-examination may well involve putting individual cases to experts.”
This is hokum masquerading as legal reasoning.
Although Postmedia made its initial application to record the proceedings Aug. 19, Justice Steeves didn’t like the form and manner in which the request was made.
Related
The media organization re-submitted its application Wednesday; he still wasn’t happy with it and he made that clear.
When the trial began Tuesday morning, Postmedia requested permission to record but not release the opening statements until the justice resolved the issue of cameras with a view to broadcasting the material if allowed.
Steeves refused that request and on Friday ruled that no camera would record the remainder of the opening statements because the first three days were missing.
Turning on a camera now would not give a balanced view of the opening, he said, without irony.
He may as well have thumbed his nose at those who pay his $314,000 salary.
This was the first application under a new Supreme Court practice directive that said judges could permit cameras into their courtrooms even over objections from those involved in the proceedings. Parties used to have a veto.
That change made it sound as if the veritable prohibition against cameras in B.C. courts was ending and the provincial judiciary finally about to enter the twentieth century.
Fat chance.
But maybe it’s just as well — people might have been incensed to watch Steeves do nothing for three and half days save listen to a lawyer read a 298-page preview of the plaintiff’s case.
It’s not as if he couldn’t have read it himself in a few hours — it has no value as evidence in the case; it’s promotional.
He didn’t sit Friday afternoon, opening statements from the government and interveners can wait till Monday — the trial is expected to run into next year, why rush?
We won’t hear the first witness for at least another week.
Steeves said the media could make another application for cameras if there is any other kind of evidence that comes up and for closing arguments.
The entire episode was an example of why so many ordinary folk think the courts are out of touch and bastions of elitism.
We have lost an fantastic opportunity to show the courts at work (or not) conducting one of the great debates of our time, on the future of public health care.
