Goudge Inquiry: Sound Case for Publication Ban;

As a life-long journalist it goes against the grain to support a request for a publication ban.

I do, however, support lawyer James Lockyer's request, for a ban on publication of the identities of seven clients who have standing at the Inquiry - as well as the publication of any information that may tend to identify them.

Lockyer contends a ban does not violate the constitutional right to freedom of expression for three principal reasons: the focus of the Inquiry is "systemic", their actual identities are "irrelevant," and that "subjecting them to further media attention and public scrutiny would result in unnecessary prejudice and suffering for them."

Lockyer sheds some light on the logistics involved in a factum filed with the inquiry. They break down like this:

The Chief Coroner's review of post-1991 suspicious death cases involving Dr. Charles Smith found that twelve people had been convicted of a crime relating to a child's death;
Nine of these cases were within AIDWYC's mandate; (AIDWYC's Web-site indicates that, "The cases AIDWYC adopts are currently limited to murder convictions where the accused is "factually innocent"; that is, where proof exists (through DNA or other means) that the person was not involved in any way with the murder. Due to resource restrictions, AIDWYC is currently only able to handle homicide cases.)
Two of the nine already public AIDWYC cases;
The other seven - those subject to the application for a publication ban - are new and not of public knowledge;
Six of the seven will be seeking an extension of time for their application to the Ontario Court of Appeal;
The seventh has exhausted all avenues of appeal - including an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. (AIDWYC will be making an application for a ministerial review).

Lockyer informs the Inquiry in his factum that the four mothers and three fathers he represents have all been convicted of crimes arising out of the death of a child, have all been exposed to vilification in the press, and, "have all had to experience the shame, dishonour and humiliation that inevitably accompany a conviction of this nature."

To make matters even worse, "Some have spent time in prison under extremely adverse conditions due in large part to the stigma and disgrace attached to their purported crimes"..."Each party is genuinely and quite understandingly frightened of further public vilification...should their names be released at this time."

I can accept a publication ban because this is not a criminal trial where failure to disclose identities raises suspicion and lack of confidence in the criminal justice system.

This ban is being raised in the context of a systemic Inquiry in which Commissioner Stephen Goudge is specifically prohibited by his Terms of Reference from making conclusions relating to specific cases in his report.

It is far more important to have the factual basis for the seven cases available to the Inquiry than to cause further hardship to these innocent individuals and take the risk that some may choose to back out rather than prolong their ordeal.

Lockyer's motion for a publication ban will be heard by the Inquiry on Friday, October 19;