Readers of news stories dealing with crime and the legal system are probably well-accustomed to seeing the names of alleged criminals – and even those who have been convicted – left out because the Youth Criminal Justice Act prohibits the publication of the names of those who commit or are accused of committing crimes while they are under the age 18. To many Canadians, this is an affront and the argument is often put forward that this, along with generally lesser sentences compared to those given to adults found guilty of crimes, may contribute to the willingness of youth to commit crime, since they know their name won’t be revealed and any criminal record they compile as a youth will be sealed from public access. While this may be the case, there are also sound arguments as to why their names shouldn’t be published. Preventing the indiscretions or even serious mistakes of youth from following a person throughout their adult life is one such argument. Saving an unjustly accused teenager from the suspicion of criminal tendencies in the case of those found not guilty is another, though the courts do not generally extend this privilege to those who are above 18 when accused. Unfortunately, being accused of a crime can have serious repercussions, even if the offence cannot be proved.
Followers of cases such as the headline-grabbing Jian Ghomeshi trial also know that the identities of the accusers are usually not revealed in matters of sexual assault, in order to protect their privacy, though some, like Lucy DeCoutere, one of Ghomeshi’s accusers, may opt to make their identities public knowledge.
Less common are the other situations in which a victim’s name and identity are kept confidential. This can occur if the victim of a crime is under 18 and now, as a result of legislation that created the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, if the Crown requests a publication ban on the victim’s identity. This ban applies even after the trial has concluded and cannot be violated unless the victim applies to the courts to have it lifted.
As a result of these various regulations, there sometimes arise cases in which neither victims nor alleged perpetrators can be named. Sometimes this is because the relationship between the victim and the accused means that naming the former would identify the latter, or vice versa.
Most of the time, victims in murder or manslaughter cases are named because it is presumed that their need for privacy ceased with their death. But a current case in Thompson is one in which neither the accused nor the victim, killed more than 10 years ago, can be named or identified in media reports.
In reality, such bans can protect accused and victims in the larger world, but many people know precisely who they are, especially in smaller communities like Thompson. Often, anyone who wishes to know their identities could discover them by making a trip to the court office and requesting public records related to the case, or by attending the trial themselves. However, in the age of social media, it is not only journalists who must respect publication bans. Typing identifying information in a publicly accessible forum could conceivably land the author on the wrong side of the law.
