An Edmonton judge will today make what should be a simple and straightforward decision. Unfortunately, though, when it comes to allowing cameras in Canadian courtrooms, it seems nothing is simple or straightforward. Therefore, the decision could be monumental.

It is well past time to abandon our foolish reluctance to allow the public this window into the justice system. This case in Edmonton is the ideal starting point.

Media outlets have requested to allow a camera into the courtroom Thursday, when the judge brings down his verdict in the Travis Vader murder case. Vader is charged with two counts of first-degree murder in the apparent deaths of Lyle and Marie McCann. "Apparent" because their bodies have never been found.

The case has been an unusual one in several respects, and so the verdict will be significant. The media request is to show the judge, and the judge alone, as he delivers that verdict. There is no intention to broadcast any witnesses, any graphic evidence, or anything else. Moreover, the media request has the support of both the McCann family and the accused and his attorney.

This is all happening in open court already. Any member of the public could attend and watch in person. Journalists who are present are able to describe in detail what’s happening — even do so in real time via Twitter. 

Given all of that, it’s hard to see how anything is threatened by allowing a camera in court to broadcast the ruling. That hasn’t, however, stopped the crown prosecutor in the case from making some strange arguments against the application. 

Ashley Finlayson says he’s worried about "the floodgates" being opened if the application is approved, but any future application would still be at the discretion of that particular judge and the circumstances of that case. 

Finlayson also suggested that the video of the judge’s summary could be taken out of context, but the same could be said of any piece of reporting from the trial, or any particular aspect of the case that a citizen chooses to watch in person or read about after the fact. It’s absurd to argue that the public is better served by reduced access to the justice system. 

It’s probably exceedingly rare that members of the public seek out and read entire judges’ decisions, even when those cases are high profile. Yet, clearly the public has an interest in these decisions, and we should err on the side of facilitating greater access to them.

Take the Matthew de Grood trial, for example, which concerned Calgary’s worst-ever mass murder. There was no question about whether de Grood had taken fives lives in horrific fashion, but rather, whether he would be held criminally responsible. There were all sorts of questions about his mental state leading up to the killings, and whether anything could have been done to intervene beforehand.

As such, there was tremendous public interest in the trial and, in particular, the judge’s verdict. The day of the verdict, in fact, there were two overflow courtrooms set up to accommodate those wishing to attend. Reporters, who were confined to the jury box, were live-tweeting the details of the verdict as it came down.

That was a clear and obvious case of a verdict that should have been broadcast, yet it never really seemed to come up. We seem to be conditioned to this notion that courts are no-go zones for cameras, without ever really considering whether that makes sense. That’s why this decision in Edmonton could be so significant. 

This isn’t unchartered territory, either. Supreme Court cases have been broadcast for years. Two years ago, Manitoba launched a pilot project to allow cameras in courts. Their approach would be to reverse the onus, so that arguments would have to be presented to keep cameras out, not the other way around.

That’s how it should be. The principles of open courts and freedom of the press have taken a back seat to irrational fears for far too long.

Afternoons with Rob Breakenridge airs weekdays on NewsTalk 770. rob.breakenridge@corusent.com