It may be time for a national discussion about the effect social media tools like Twitter and Facebook are having on the cases playing out in Canadian courtrooms, says Ontario's attorney general.
That conversation — sparked by the tweets arising from the high-profile case of convicted sex killer Russell Williams — must start with the judiciary, who make decisions every day about what's allowed in a courtroom, said Attorney General Chris Bentley.
Many provinces are grappling with the question of how they can keep their courtrooms open in an age where so much information is instantly accessible, while ensuring that fairness and impartiality aren't compromised, he said.
“That's a very important discussion and one we have to get right,” Mr. Bentley said.
“Because if we allow social media in for different reasons and then the limits placed on it are not respected, we can't protect the interests that need to be protected. The inevitable result will be that we go back into a much more closed situation.”
A well-known criminal lawyer who represented Mr. Williams called for the debate after disturbing and unfettered details from the court case spread like wildfire over the Internet.
Journalists covering the case were permitted to bring their laptops, cellphones and audio recording devices into the courtroom — equipment that is often not allowed in Ontario courts — allowing them to report on the hearing as it unfolded.
Twitter and Facebook were flooded with bone-chilling details of Mr. Williams' sado-sexual crimes, from the disturbing pornographic photos of the disgraced ex-colonel posing in girls' stolen underwear to graphic descriptions of how he raped and murdered two women.
There needs to be a national debate about the impact of social media in Canadian courts and whether new ground rules should be laid for high-profile cases, said Michael Edelson, who represented Mr. Williams.
“We've come to the conclusion — and we've done this after speaking to a number of senior journalists, many of whom share our view — that the time has come to have some kind of public debate about this whole issue,” he said.
The usually media-shy lawyer, whose Ottawa firm has represented many high-profile clients, said he's gone public with his views because the issue is too important to ignore.
Mr. Edelson said he'd like to see a forum where senior journalists, judges and lawyers could get together and “throw around ideas” about whether social media tools should be controlled inside the courtroom.
The context of what's being heard in court is often lost in Twitter posts, which are limited to 140 characters each, he said.
“The public interest is not served by where they don't properly understand court proceedings and they don't understand why a certain verdict or certain sentence emanates from the court, because they haven't been given enough information to make a decision for themselves,” Mr. Edelson said.
“And certainly, getting 140 characters doesn't assist you in making a decision whether or not the judge got it right or lawyers were making silly submissions or whatever the case may be.”
The amount of information available online has also made jury trials increasingly difficult, said John Struthers, a director of the Criminal Lawyers' Association.
The main problem is that judges, jurors and witnesses are getting information from sources that are not traditionally permitted, he said.
“You're supposed to decide the case solely on the evidence heard inside the four walls of the courtroom and nothing else at all,” he said.
Judges will direct jurors not to do any independent research or investigate anyone involved in the case, but they'll still Google the scene, the lawyers and even the accused, Mr. Struthers said.
“I had a case recently in Brampton where a witness who was about to be called by the prosecution was sitting in the corridor on his Facebook account on a cellphone, changing his status and threatening the accused from the courtroom outside,” he said.
