The most widely read magazine for Canadian lawyers
Issue link: https://digital.canadianlawyermag.com/i/56644
Eyes to the soul W The argument over whether cameras should be allowed in the courtroom has been going on for years, but the Vancouver riot cases brought the debate front and centre again. By Michael McKiernan hen a California jury acquitted O.J. Simpson counts in 1995, of murder the of two ver- dict delivered a where-were-you-when moment to people around the world. But the trial also gave Canadian advocates for cameras in the courtroom their big- gest and longest-lasting headache. The case has become a textbook argument against putting cameras in the courts, with grandstanding lawyers on both sides, an allegedly star-struck judge, and an orgy of commentary stoking a media frenzy around the televised trial. That same year, the Supreme Court of Canada allowed CBC Newsworld to broadcast live a tax case concerning spousal support payments, Thibaudeau v. Canada, and shortly thereafter began broadcasting its proceedings regularly on the Canadian Public Affairs Channel. But rather than setting a precedent for tele- vising proceedings, progress outside the country's top court has largely stalled, with the spectre of O.J. raising its head in every province that tackles the issue. 32 M A RCH 2012 www. CANADIAN Lawyermag.com "I think the O.J. Simpson trial and some other sensational cases in the U.S. are responsible for the visceral reaction you find by many people against it," says Dan Burnett, a media lawyer at Owen Bird Law Corp. in Vancouver. Burnett, who has been a key player in the cam- paign for cameras in the courtroom in B.C., sees the Simpson case as an anomalous one. "They have been televis- ing trials for a long time in the U.S. and for the most part, it works fine," he says. "They may have a problem there with celebrity trials, but I don't see us having cARL WIENS