Criminal Code of Canada - section 542(2) - Restriction of publication of reports of preliminary inquiry

section 542(2)

INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

It is a crime to publish or transmit a report of an admission or confession tendered as evidence in a preliminary inquiry unless the accused has been discharged or the trial has ended.

SECTION WORDING

542(2) Every one who publishes in any document, or broadcasts or transmits in any way, a report that any admission or confession was tendered in evidence at a preliminary inquiry or a report of the nature of such admission or confession so tendered in evidence unless (a) the accused has been discharged, or (b) if the accused has been ordered to stand trial, the trial has ended, is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

EXPLANATION

Section 542(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is aimed at protecting individuals who are accused of committing a crime from having their preliminary inquiry affected by media reports. The section makes it an offense to publish, broadcast, or transmit in any way, a report stating that any admission or confession was tendered in evidence at a preliminary inquiry. This is necessary because preliminary inquiries are conducted to determine whether there is enough evidence to justify a trial. The accused is not guilty at this stage, and introducing any evidence, such as confessions, before the actual trial would be unfair. The purpose of this section is to ensure that the media does not create a biased public opinion towards the accused. The accused has a right to a fair trial, and the dissemination of information about confessions made at a preliminary inquiry could affect their ability to have a fair trial. This section provides two exceptions for reporting on confessions made at preliminary inquiries, namely, if the accused has been discharged or if the trial has ended. This provision guarantees that the public's right to know is not completely compromised while protecting the integrity of the accused's right to a fair trial. In conclusion, Section 542(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an essential tool in protecting the rights of an accused person to have a fair trial. It ensures that the media does not affect the integrity of a preliminary inquiry, which is a crucial step in the criminal justice process. As a result, the provision ensures that justice is served with impartiality.

COMMENTARY

Section 542(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that criminalizes the publication, broadcasting, or transmission of any report of a confession or admission presented as evidence at a preliminary inquiry. The section imposes heavy restrictions on the media's responsibility to report on court proceedings, particularly those that have not yet been subject to a trial. The provision aims to protect the accused's presumption of innocence by preventing any prejudicial information from being shared that may influence the public's perception of their guilt. The right to a fair trial is a fundamental human right, and Section 542(2) recognizes the importance of ensuring that the accused receives a fair trial where justice can be done. The publication of information relating to a confession or admission presented as evidence at a preliminary inquiry is an act that can be deemed prejudicial to the accused's right to a fair trial. This is because such evidence is not subject to the same level of scrutiny as evidence presented at trial. In the context of a preliminary inquiry, the Crown is not required to prove the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Crown only needs to demonstrate that there is sufficient evidence to warrant a trial. Therefore, the evidence presented at a preliminary hearing is often challenged and subject to cross-examination, making it more vulnerable to error, inaccuracy, or unreliability. Section 542(2) enacted to prevent the media coverage of confessions and admissions made at preliminary inquiries from having a potentially prejudicial impact on trial outcomes. Any disclosure of information regarding such evidence reduces the chances of a fair trial, thus affecting the administration of justice. However, Section 542(2) has attracted criticism, particularly from media outlets that argue that the provision violates their freedom of expression. The provision limits their ability to report on cases that may be of public interest and hampers their role in informing the public. Moreover, the provision does not allow for any exceptions, even when the information is in the public interest. As a result, the public may not get timely and vital information about ongoing criminal proceedings, which may have implications for their safety. In conclusion, Section 542(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada imparts justifiable limits on the media's freedom of expression concerning preliminary hearing proceedings. It aims to protect the integrity of the trial process, maintain the accused's right to a fair trial, and prevent any potentially prejudicial information from being shared with the public. However, the provision might have unforeseen and adverse consequences, including a lack of transparency in the justice system and the undermining of the media's role in informing the public. As such, it's necessary to strike a balance between the rights of the accused and the media's responsibilities when reporting on legal proceedings.

STRATEGY

Section 542(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada makes it a criminal offense to publish, broadcast, or transmit in any way a report containing information about admissions or confessions given by an accused during a preliminary inquiry. The section is designed to protect the rights of the accused and to prevent wrongful convictions resulting from pre-trial publicity. However, it also poses a challenge for media organizations and journalists who cover criminal proceedings. In this essay, we will consider some strategic considerations when dealing with this section of the Criminal Code of Canada, and outline some strategies that could be employed to navigate it. One of the main strategic considerations when dealing with Section 542(2) is the tension between the media's role in reporting on criminal proceedings and the accused's right to a fair trial. Journalists have a duty to inform the public about matters of public interest, such as high-profile criminal cases. However, their reporting can also influence public perceptions of the accused and the outcome of the trial. This is particularly true in cases where the accused is a public figure, and the media coverage can have a significant impact on their reputation and career. In such cases, the accused's legal team may argue that pre-trial publicity has prejudiced their client's chance of a fair trial, and may seek to have the proceedings stayed or the jury sequestered. One strategy that journalists can employ to avoid running afoul of Section 542(2) is to report on the facts of the case without including any information about admissions or confessions made by the accused. This may require careful scrutiny of court documents and proceedings, as well as seeking legal advice where necessary. Another strategy is to wait until the accused has been discharged or the trial has ended before reporting on any admissions or confessions made during the preliminary inquiry. This approach allows journalists to report on the outcome of the case and any evidence presented in court without risking a criminal charge. Another consideration is the potential impact of Section 542(2) on freedom of the press and the right to free expression. Critics of the section argue that it can be used to stifle reporting on matters of public interest and to shield the justice system from scrutiny. They also point out that the section does not apply to court proceedings that are open to the public, and that the media should be allowed to report on these proceedings without fear of prosecution. However, proponents of the section argue that it is necessary to protect the fair trial rights of the accused and to prevent pre-trial publicity from prejudicing the outcome of the case. One strategy that media organizations and journalists can employ to challenge Section 542(2) is to lobby for its amendment or repeal. This could involve working with civil liberties groups and legal organizations to raise awareness of the section's impact on freedom of the press and the right to free expression. They could also seek to challenge the section's constitutionality in court, arguing that it violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In conclusion, Section 542(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada poses a challenge for media organizations and journalists who cover criminal proceedings. To navigate this section, journalists must balance their duty to report on matters of public interest with the accused's right to a fair trial. Strategies that could be employed include reporting on the facts of the case without including information about admissions or confessions, waiting until the accused has been discharged or the trial has ended before reporting on such information, lobbying for the amendment or repeal of the section, and challenging its constitutionality in court. Ultimately, the goal should be to ensure that the media can report on criminal proceedings without risking criminal charges or infringing on the accused's right to a fair trial.