Explainer: Journalism, criminal charges, and the open-court principle in Canada
Reporting on criminal proceedings, including naming accused, isn’t about being insensitive – it’s about keeping the lights on
When news outlets report the names of people charged with criminal offences, it sometimes makes some readers uncomfortable.
It often down right pisses off those charged with crimes and family members. That reaction is understandable. Being charged is not the same thing as being convicted, and criminal allegations can carry serious reputational harm.
But discomfort is not the test for whether something should be reported. In Canada, the test is the open-court principle, a foundational rule of our justice system and a cornerstone of democratic accountability.
This comes up quite often regarding media coverage of criminal court.
Recently, coverage of Bevin van Liempt’s convictions for criminal harassment of teenage girls led him to file lawsuits against the victims’ mothers, some court watchers and others, including yours truly as he claims a conspiracy of defamation among dozens of people. Reporting on court cases truthfully as part of public interest is not defamation, as the courts have determined over and over.
Months ago family or friends close to corrections officer Jason Lee were outraged about the media coverage when he was convicted of conspiring with criminals behind bars at maximum-security Kent Institution to smuggle drugs, phones, and weapons into the prison. Again, the situations is terrible, but is objectively public information and needs to be reported on.
And most recently, two people affiliated with one or more of six men charged in connection with a large multi-jurisdictional operation to arrest alleged drug traffickers contacted me, one to ask that a story be removed the other to threaten legal action. The former was not assuaged by the fact that the RCMP issued a news release stating the same information, but the former finally accepted the situation when the open-court principle was explained via email.
At its core, the open-court principle means that justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. Court proceedings are presumptively open to the public and the media. Hearings are held in public courtrooms. Court files are public records. Decisions are published. This openness is not accidental or optional – it exists precisely because the justice system exercises immense power over individuals, including the power to arrest, detain, prosecute, and imprison.
The Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly affirmed that openness in court proceedings is essential to public confidence in the justice system. A system that operates in secrecy is not trusted; it is feared. Open courts allow the public to scrutinize how police lay charges, how prosecutors conduct cases, how judges interpret the law, and how accused persons are treated. Journalism is the mechanism by which most members of the public actually gain access to that scrutiny.
This is where journalism comes in.
Most Canadians cannot attend court every day. Reporters do. Journalists act as the public’s eyes and ears, accurately if imperfectly recording what happens in court and making it accessible to the broader community. That includes reporting who has been charged, what the charges are, what evidence is alleged, and what happens as a case moves through the system.
This is not gossip. It is the documentation of state power being exercised in public.
Naming accused persons is not done casually. It is done because the justice system itself names them. When police lay charges, they do so in public court documents. When a person appears in court, they do so under their own name. Unless a judge orders otherwise – through a publication ban or a sealing order – the identity of the accused is part of the public record. Journalists do not create this information; they report it.
Importantly, Canadian journalism operates under a strict legal and ethical framework. Reporters are bound by defamation law, contempt of court rules, and publication bans. They are expected to report accurately, fairly, and with clear language that emphasizes a crucial fact: a person charged with an offence is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Responsible reporting states this explicitly and avoids presenting allegations as facts.
What journalism cannot do is selectively hide lawful court proceedings simply because they are uncomfortable, embarrassing, or unpopular. Doing so would undermine the very transparency that protects against wrongful convictions, abusive prosecutions, and systemic bias. History is full of examples where open reporting exposed miscarriages of justice that secrecy would have buried.
A society that believes in the rule of law must also believe in watching the law at work. The open-court principle ensures that criminal proceedings are not hidden behind closed doors. Journalism ensures that openness is real rather than theoretical. Together, this form a system of accountability that protects everyone, including the accused.
The alternative is silence, secrecy, and trust without verification. Canada has deliberately chosen a different path.
This isn’t about being insensitive. It’s about keeping the lights on.
-30-
Want to support independent journalism?
Consider becoming a paid subscriber or make a one-time donation so I can continue this work.
Paul J. Henderson
pauljhenderson@gmail.com
facebook.com/PaulJHendersonJournalist
instagram.com/wordsarehard_pjh
x.com/PeeJayAitch
wordsarehard-pjh.bsky.social