I’m learning how to blog. Facebook I use mainly for social purposes. My Twitter account focuses on issues relating to my law practice. Nevertheless, social media is ever-expanding and it’s hard to find a person today who isn’t engaged in using social media in one way, or another.
If you follow me on Twitter, you know that yesterday I had a brief, heated dialogue with a media outlet that tweeted something quite untrue relating to the court case of a client of mine. For the record, the reporter who made the honest mistake (and I dobelieve it was an honest mistake) has since retracted the tweet and I’m sure the mistake will not be repeated. But I’m assuming the erroneous tweet was made in a rush to deliver some ‘breaking news’, but the facts were wrong before it was sent out. This is one of the risks associated with Twitter.
I can sympathize with what happened yesterday because I’ve been in that situation myself – I sent out tweets that later regret and wish I could take back (I deleted them asap, but I know many people have likely already seen the tweet). For myself, there was a steep learning curve when I started using Twitter and I learned a couple Golden Rules when using Twitter:
1) Make sure you are certain that what you are saying is true and factually correct, and
2) Don’t tweet when you are overly emotional (ie: pissed off, upset etc.).
Coincidentally, yesterday Chief Justice Beverly McLaughlin of the Supreme Court of Canada gave a speech to some university students about how Canada’s justice system needs to embrace and better understand the reach of social media. Today, reporters want to tweet information from inside courtrooms, jury trials have been jeopardized because jurors have been caught tweeting/googling cases they’re sitting on, and Facebook profiles have been places where evidence for criminal and civil trials have been gathered. These are some of the many issues that Madam Justice McLaughlin likely anticipates that the justice system will have to come to grips with as social media’s relevance expands in our society. I thought it was great that our country’s top judge has taken such a progressive approach to better understanding social media’s impact on our justice system – and I know it will have a trickle-down effect to courtrooms across Canada.
What are your thoughts on social media’s role in our justice system? Should judges tweet about cases they are deciding? What about Crown prosecutors? Would the public gain a better understanding about a particular case if these players were permitted to do so?
I do not know the answers to those questions… but if they do tweet, they should follow my two Golden Rules above.
“Officer, I know my constitutional rights. Firstly, I refuse to speak with you, other than to identify myself. I further refuse to consent for you to search my person, or my residence, or my motor vehicle. I wish to speak to my lawyer immediately. If I am under arrest, please tell me why. If I am not under arrest, I wish to leave.”
Crime and the media go together like peanut butter and jelly. Laugh, but it’s true. It’s almost like they need one another to exist to their fullest potential. The news without a good crime story feels incomplete. On second thought, the media needs to report on crime more than the criminals care to have their cases blasted in the press. Nevertheless, this is a bit of what I have learned about the interesting relationship between the two:
“If it bleeds, it leads”
Open your local newspaper, or regional paper, or even national publication. Actually, you do not even have to open it past the front page on most days to see that the headlines on the front cover usually deal with a crime-related story. Crime stories grab readers attention as they are usually events that are out of the norm and describe the impact on the victims of the alleged criminal act. Getting more readers’ attention usually translates into more sales for the media company. Pretty simple formula.
Personally, I do not too much weight to articles and/or news stories on TV when they report upon a story the day it took place. These stories are often inaccurate and sensationalized due to the chaos or high emotions surrounding the event.
I start to pay attention once the matter gets inside a courtroom.
Once the trial proper begins, this is when and where you can start sifting through what is fact and what is fiction. Here, the witnesses give their sworn testimony and are subject to cross-examination. There are a lot of eyes focused on deciphering what is likely to be truth ie: the judge, 12 members of the jury, crown prosecutors, defence counsel, and of course the friends and/or family of the victims to the alleged crime. It can be a dramatic experience as the trial’s process sifts it’s way to the truth of what occurred many months prior.
Of course, inside that courtroom are likely to be court reporters, too. Sometimes they arrive in your courtroom by chance after scouring the daily courtlists looking for a ‘juicy’ story, or sometimes they have had the start of your client’s trial marked in their calendars for many months, as it was one of those events that “bled and led” months ago.
In my career as a criminal lawyer, I’ve come to know many of Vancouver’s courtroom reporters – and I like most of them. But it wasn’t always that way. When I first started practicing a few years ago and I had a reporter inside my courtroom, I’d too often get all hot & bothered if I didn’t agree with how a reporter wrote about the evidence that was heard in court that day. I’d fire off an email, call into the newsroom, or simply pull the reporter aside the next time I saw him/her and let them know where I thought they went wrong in their writing. However, I found that such an approach was quite exhausting and only added to my already stressful job. In short, I stopped worrying about what courtroom reporters wrote because 1) they are going to write what they want anyways, and 2) they are writing for a newspaper for an objective in mind – selling more newspapers.
What does surprise me, still to this day, is how little formal legal training many courtroom reporters have. Much of it becomes apparent in their writings, as they misinterpret various technical motions, weight of particular witness’s evidence, and various Orders from the judge prior to a verdict. I really do think that a formal legal education, in combination with journalism training, would make the best courtroom reporter. In a perfect world I guess.
The manner and speed in which reporters get their stories out to the public has changed incredibly. Not only are there massive satellite trucks parked outside the courthouse for the ‘major’ trials so that information can be relayed straight to your TV for the noon and six o’clock news, but also more judges are permitting the use of Twitter in the courtroom, which I find to be a very fascinating tool. Yet has Canada’s criminal justice system permitted cameras inside of courtrooms for trial – and I hope it remains that way. If cameras were permitted, it could affect the manner in which a vulnerable witnesses gives evidence, if s/he knows that there are many more eyes watching the trial from the comforts of their living rooms. I also know many reporters have arguments for cameras in courtrooms.
One thing I do know which I have learned in my few years of practice is be careful what you say to the media when you are asked for comment. Sometimes it is not in your client’s best interest, or your own interest to speak to the media prior to the verdict in a criminal matter. I have been misquoted before, and that has reallybothered me.
My practice today is that when I am asked by a reporter for a comment, I often say”email me your questions and I will happily answer them”. This way there is a record of what is said, and it also provides myself with some time for a ‘sober second thought’ before answering. I’ve even engaged in Q&A sessions over Twitter with some reporters, which was a positive experience, too.
The media and criminal justice system are always going to be intertwined. They don’t teach you deal with the press in law school, that’s for sure. These are just some things I’ve learned along the way after a few years of practicing law. And in law school, they don’t teach you how to write blogs. Sorry if there are grammatical errors. 😉
In my last post, I briefly touched upon what was unfolding in the U.K. and the rioting that was spreading from London to many more of that country’s major cities. The violence and looting that was broadcast to the world was shocking to many. There were hundreds of reported arsons, thefts, burglaries, assaults, and even murders. David Cameron, the Prime Minister, and many other politicians made strong statements to the media on how order will be restored and those found to be responsible for these crimes will feel the full effect of the law. We heard similar cries from British Columbia’s politicians when Vancouver experienced its riot 2-months ago. However, what I found intriguing was the speed at which justice has been delivered in the UK compared to what was have seen in Vancouver.
In London, as the riot raged out in the streets, the courthouses remained open throughout the night to deal with those individuals charged with riot-related offences.There were bail hearings held and guilty pleas entered. And the sentences were heavy. However, In Vancouver, we have yet to have a single person charged with a riot-related criminal offence. This is quite perplexing to many when we have heard of people turning themselves in to the Vancouver Police admitting to their criminal conduct in the riot. Why would it take so long for rioters in Vancouver to be charged, especially when many have admitted their guilt to the police?
There is one significant difference between the manner in which charges are laid in Canada versus the U.K. that may explain the speed of justice delivered in each country. In Canada, police investigate a crime then make their recommendation of charges to Crown counsel, who then have to decide whether to approve the charges based on the evidence the police have gathered. In the U.K., police themselves lay the charges. It appears to be a much quicker, or streamlined process.
However, there is growing debate as to which country’s system is better, or more efficient. The general public in both countries wants to see rioters face swift and significant repercussions. In Vancouver, the passage of time with no charges laid has left the public wondering if our justice system is broken altogether. The Vancouver Police have said that they are still sifting through mountains of photos and video to ensure they have a careful and complete body of evidence for those whom are eventually charged. Vancouver citizens hear of how rioters have been dealt with in the U.K. and they are wondering why it is so remarkably different. But in the U.K., the Law Society has now warned judges to “not hand down rushed justice“.
Which system do you think is better: one that is swift and immediate or one that is more cautious and takes more time?
I think the swifter U.K. version provides greater immediate deterrence to the public but I also think that B.C.’s slower, more cautious system provides the justice system with a ‘sober second thought’ on how to properly sentence those before the courts. There are pro’s and con’s to each. I hope both countries can learn from one another and make improvements to each of their justice systems.
Yesterday in the news there were various reports that the Liberal Government is abolishing the current police complaint scheme that has existed in BC and switching it to a system that is one where police complaints are investigated and handled by a civilian-led commission, rather than ‘the police investigating the police’. This is great news for British Columbia, though it a LONG overdue. (Story here)
I know and fully appreciate that police officers have a very difficult job. I think we can all agree on that. The individuals who sign up for this job also appreciate that they will be held to an extremely higher standard in the manner in which they conduct themselves – on and off – the job. But it is when police officers stray from this high standard of conduct and find themselves embroiled in controversial actions that could see their conduct as disgraceful (a term found in the Police Act) or even unlawful, is when we need to carefully consider how to handle the situation.
When a police officer is charged with a criminal offence (such as assault, uttering threats, possession or distribution of illegal narcotics, impaired driving etc) most usually a police force from a different jurisdiction other than the one the accused works for will handle the investigation and correspond with Crown prosecutors.However, criminal charges against a police officer are often coupled with a Police Act investigation that will determine (separately from the criminal process) whether the officer’s actions violated that high standard of conduct that not only the Police Act stipulates, but that we as citizens expect from our police officers.
When these Police Act investigations occur, they are conducted by senior officers, either from within the same detachment as the subject of the complaint, or sometimes (often due to public outrage in recent cases) farmed out to a police force in another jurisdiction in an (lame) attempt to give off the impression that the investigation is “independent”. Right.
The Blue Wall
I’m writing about this topic because I have seen firsthand how our current police complaints procedures have failed us. Miserably. I will describe a case of mine as an example of how “police investigating police” just doesn’t work….
My client JW was leaving a pub on a Saturday night in the Kitsilano area of Vancouver when a rather agitated sergeant (Sgt. DT) from the Vancouver Police Department came on the scene in his police car and began yelling and swearing at people to “hurry up and go home”. My client (and numerous other witnesses) tells me that Sgt. DT drove his police car up on the curb of the sidewalk, threatened people over his loudspeaker, then exited his vehicle and began using his police baton in a very threatening and intimidating manner towards people. Please understand that these people were simple leaving the pub at closing time and trying to make their way home by walking, waiting for rides, and hailing taxi cabs. Oh, and I have the CCTV video to prove it. (actual story is here: http://tinyurl.com/63kfmme)
On the video my client is seen walking down the street, texting on his cell phone, when Sgt. DT comes sprinting at JW, full speed, and cross-checks him in the neck with his baton, sending JW flying on to his back, hitting his head on the sidewalk. JW suffered only minor injuries. Luckily.
Now, as I said, we managed to secure the CCTV footage of the event. We have 30 minutes of tape that shows a peaceful area, calm and order. The only person who acted violently was Sgt. DT, who we later learned was a 23-yr veteran of the VPD. We were all shocked.
Sgt. DT was convicted of assault and the courts did their job in handling Sgt. DT’s criminal matters. I am not going to go into detail about that process. It is the Police Act investigation that is an absolute JOKE.
We filed a complaint with the Police Complaints Commissioner and learned that the person who would be in charge of the Police Act investigation would be Sgt. JK, a 21-yr veteran of the Vancouver Police Department. “You have got to be fucking kidding me?!” I said to myself AND the Police Complaints Commisioner – on numerous occasions.
So here we have a 21-yr veteran of the VPD investigating a 23-yr veteran of the VPD. These are two senior officers who have worked alongside one another for virtually their entire careers. And Sgt. JK assured me that “I am confident that I can do this in an unbiased manner”. I called bullshit from the very beginning. (and I was right…. )
This was a high-profile case. Everyone in Vancouver read about it in the papers and it was splashed all over the news, largely because we had the incident “caught on tape”. I kicked and screamed to the Complaint Commissioner that this investigation could not properly proceed in this way. They disagreed, and let the investigation continue….
This incident happened about 18 months ago and the VPD investigators asked for, and was granted, extension after extension in order to complete his report. I had basically thrown my hands up and given up all hope on this file, when I got a surprising call from the Complaint Commissioner. He said that Sgt. JK had submitted his Report for final approval and that the Commissioner felt that there were many oversights within it, witnesses not properly interviewed, basically, it was garbage. The Commissioner then decided that this investigation had to be switched to someone new……… so they handed it off to someone else, this new investigator was ALSO a member of the VPD. I hope that you can see the sarcastic smile of disbelief on my face while you read this.
So one VPD investigator couldn’t do the job properly of investigating one of his colleagues of a serious complaint, so the Commissioner handed it off to another person within the VPD to tidy it up. Police cannot and should not investigate themselves. It does not work. If bias does not actually exist, it sure gives off the impression that it does exist or that it COULD exist.
The investigation is still ongoing. With the change of investigators, the VPD got another extension. 18+ months later I am more convinced than ever that we need a civilian-based investigation scheme when complaints are levied at the police.
Why do you think of the liberals proposals to change the system to a civilian-led body?
