'Open Court' in Manitoba: "Pardon, we can't hear you?"

Good Day Readers:

Manitobans like to take pride in their open court justice system but how open is it if you can't hear most of the proceedings? And yes, our hearing is just fine thank you very much. We have encountered this situation time and time and time again ..... it's no longer amusing.

Yesterday, we were in a couple courtrooms covering cases (230 - we'll have a separate posting about it shortly), as well as, 214 where a murder trial is underway (a retrial of a mistrial). It was the same old, same old - much of what transpired we couldn't hear. Past experience has taught us better sit in the front row of the public gallery to have a chance of hearing what's happening and even then .....

Why? Well: some of the rooms are quite large; counsel addresses the judge (and sometimes a jury) with their backs facing the public gallery; lawyers (and judges too) can be given to mumbling; finally, microphones are not set loudly enough.

Christie Blatchford a well-known reporter with The National Post perhaps said it best. Here's an excerpt from her October 4, 2011 article, 'Open Court' a doomed exercise for public press:

Yet there was Ms. Witkin, a pleasant woman but a bit of a mumbler, keeping her back to the small public gallery, with only Ontario Superior Court Judge Robert Clark, the jurors and court officials able to properly hear her.

As with most courtrooms in this province, there is no amplification system in use, though clearly, at one point, some insanely forward-looking person contemplated the prospect (no doubt quickly dispatched to another department where he could do less harm), for there are two big white speakers built into the wood of the first row of seats in the public gallery.

Periodically, Ms. Witkin would show a photograph to Detective-Constable Weller.

Each photograph was placed on a tripod which faced him and the jurors; the public could see squat.

Ms. Witkin had announced she was about to show a short video of the crime scene, so I sent a note to Judge Clark, asking if I might be allowed to sit behind the prosecution table with the officer in charge of the case and thus actually see the video.

Judge Clark, who is always magnificently crabby, appeared to read the note and scowled crabbily in my direction.

And sure enough, Ms. Witkin announced she was ready to show the video, and duly wheeled from a corner of the room a big old fat clunker of a TV set. She began to position it directly in front of the jurors.

As an apparent concession to my request, however, Judge Clark directed her to move it back and tilt it, which she did. Still, neither I nor anyone else in the public gallery – including Ms. Lewis’ mother, incidentally — could see a thing, a fact which must have been obvious since, by now mad with frustration, I stood up, leaned halfway over the little wall which separates the sanctified body of the court from the riffraff, and thus braced against the glass of the prisoner’s box, twisted my head sharply to the right, whereupon I could catch the odd glimpse of the TV screen.

At the recess, I was allowed to view the photographs I hadn’t been able to see earlier, but the rest of the public was not. This is absolutely the norm for all but the biggest and most high-profile trials in Ontario – that the lawyers mumble without amplification; that the public (and Press) are treated as inconvenient interlopers; that the high-minded “open court” principle so often talked about by judges is in practice a doomed exercise where even hearing or seeing the evidence that jurors see is often frustrated.

In short, it’s a joke.

As for poor dead Mr. Gillespie, thanks to the audible Detective-Constable Weller, we know now that he had in a pocket when he died a gold and diamond mouth grille, what Detective-Constable Weller described as “bling for your mouth,” and, from forensic pathologist Dr. Noel McAuliffe, that among Mr. Gillespie’s many tattoos was one, on his left forearm, of the CN Tower and the Toronto skyline, and another, on his right wrist, one that read, “Blood in, blood out.”

Rather, as with the evidence so often is for the public — garbage in, garbage out.

In the case of the murder trial in 214, on at least two occasions a witness with a desk microphone was asked to speak up because lawyers were having trouble hearing him. Even had an instance of one counselor rising to say he was unable to hear the comments of another.

Next time we're at the Law Courts we will attempt to access the most senior administrative official to offer this challenge. Pick any 2-3 courtrooms of your choosing, bring a pad and pencil and record as much as you can clearly hear in the 3-4 minutes we spend there.

We can only think of one exception. A couple weeks ago the assault and uttering a threat charges were dropped against Provincial Judge Brian M. Corrin in Courtroom 308. Oh my God someone had actually turned up the volume so we could clearly hear everything presiding Judge Kelly Moar, Mr. Wolson, the lawyer representing the accused, and Paul McDermott the Toronto Crown selected to prosecute the case. In the 3 previous hearings it was the same old, same old so it is possible the volume can be increased.

Of the many, many times we've been in Manitoba courtrooms covering procedures only once has a judge bothered to acknowledge our presence. That was Judge Garson who smiled and gave us a slight wave as we nodded and were about to depart. The rest of the time it's as though you're an inconvenient to be tolerated.

If something is not done soon, Ms Blatchford may indeed be right the notion of an 'open court' (in Manitoba) may indeed be in danger of becoming a joke, that is, if it isn't already.

Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk

premier@leg.gov.mb.ca
minjus@leg.gov.mb.ca