Paula Simons: Public deserves right to learn Travis Vader verdict from the judge himself

A judge will decide Tuesday whether to allow a consortium of Edmonton news outlets to live-stream his verdict in the Travis Vader murder trial. 

If Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Denny Thomas allows the application — brought Wednesday on behalf of Postmedia, the CBC, CTV, Global and The Canadian Press — it would be a landmark moment in Alberta legal history. 

In the past 35 years, Alberta courts have allowed cameras into their sanctums just twice: during the inquiry into the Principal Group crash (where 60,000 investors lost $500 million in 1987), and during a fatality inquiry into the death of Connie Jacobs (an aboriginal woman shot dead with her son by a Mountie in 1998). 

On Thursday, the lawyer for the news organizations, Fred Kozak, stressed he was not asking for a camera in every courtroom — just for the chance to live-stream this particular verdict. Vader wouldn’t appear on the video. The one camera would only show Thomas himself as he delivered his judgment. The news outlets would share the video feed.

There’s no law banning cameras in Alberta courtrooms. It’s simply convention that they’re not allowed. Kozak invited Thomas to use his discretion to allow a camera into his court for this specific purpose. 

Why now? Why this trial? 

Certainly, it has gripped this community like few others. 

It has two utterly sympathetic victims — Lyle and Marie McCann, a couple of beloved suburban retirees who set out to visit their family in their motorhome. 

It has a strangely charismatic accused, the smoothly handsome Travis Vader, who’s actively sought the limelight throughout his six-year legal battle. 

It features a baffling mystery, the complete disappearance of the McCanns, the absence of any bodies.

And it includes allegations of misconduct and incompetence on the part of RCMP and the Crown, who’ve been accused of mishandling the investigation since the very beginning.

Often, by the time a trial is over, the verdict isn’t much in doubt. But here, there are still so many mysteries, still so much debate about the evidence and how it was gathered. When Thomas gives his verdict next Thursday, Edmonton will be in suspense.

The verdict, whatever it is, will be controversial. If it might ignite a firestorm, why not let people hear from Thomas himself the reasons for his decision?

This isn’t some entertainment for our titillation. The McCann family is in real pain. Vader is in peril of losing his freedom, perhaps for life. The issues about the way the police and prosecutors handled this case go right to the heart of the credibility of our justice system. Vader is on trial here. But so is the rule of law itself.

Both the McCann family and Vader’s lawyer, Brian Beresh, strongly support the idea of a camera to live-stream the verdict. Only the Crown stands opposed.

Prosecutor Ashley Finlayson argued video of Thomas’ verdict could confuse viewers who lacked context for the case. The public would be better served, he argued, if journalists explained the decision to people instead, and then linked to the text of the full judgment, which will likely run 130 pages at least.

But our courts were never meant to be secret enclaves, with reporters as gatekeepers. In our legal tradition, trials are open and public. Justice must not merely be done. It must be seen to be done. That’s how we keep courts accountable, how we maintain public confidence in our justice system.

We allow cameras into our legislatures, our city council chambers, our House of Commons. We live-stream public hearings, public inquiries, school board meetings. The Supreme Court of Canada even broadcasts its proceedings on C-PAC.  Once, the idea of a TV camera recording a court room verdict seemed outlandish or unseemly. But in this digital age, when we can watch live-streams of everything from police brutality to cat tricks, the notion that a courtroom is some sacrosanct precinct can no longer stand. 

There are good arguments to be made about protecting witnesses and jurors during future trials, about preventing future cases from degenerating into reality TV spectacles. But that’s no reason to forbid a single fixed camera for this particular verdict, in a case that is not just of interest to the public, but in the public interest.

Here’s what Thomas must now decide. Is there a danger that live-streaming his decision could cause serious risk to the administration of justice? And if so, would the potential benefit of allowing people to hear the judgment directly outweigh that risk? 

In a country that values both the right to a fair trial, and the right to a free press, the answer should be clear.