When it comes to high-profile legal cases, the public’s thirst for information is insatiable. In Canada, a country that prides itself on a fair and just legal system, the need to balance transparency with due process is a delicate one. This tension was recently highlighted in the ongoing sexual assault case involving five members of Canada’s 2018 world junior hockey team. At the center of this discussion is the expert insight provided by Rob Dhanu, KC, a former federal Crown prosecutor turned criminal lawyer in Abbotsford, British Columbia. Dhanu’s perspective sheds light on why Canadian law enforcement and prosecutors often withhold details during active investigations, especially in cases that capture national attention.
Rob Dhanu’s main argument revolves around the principle that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. This means that while the public may demand immediate answers, the legal system’s priority is to ensure that every accused individual receives a fair trial. According to Dhanu, releasing too much information too soon can jeopardize this fairness, creating a host of potential problems that could undermine the integrity of the entire judicial process.
One of the key points Rob Dhanu makes is the risk of evidence being deemed inadmissible if it’s disclosed prematurely. In Canada, it is the prosecutor’s job, not the police’s, to present evidence in court. When police officers speak too freely about an ongoing investigation, there is a danger that the information they reveal could later be ruled inadmissible, potentially weakening the prosecution’s case. This could lead to an unjust outcome, where the truth is overshadowed by legal technicalities.
Moreover, Rob Dhanu highlights that public statements by police can create the perception that the authorities are attempting to sway public opinion or even influence the outcome of the trial. This is especially problematic in high-profile cases, where media coverage can be intense and widespread. If the public forms a preconceived notion of guilt or innocence based on police statements, it could lead to an unfair trial. The defense could argue that the accused has been prejudiced by this media coverage, which could result in a mistrial or grounds for appeal.
Dhanu also contrasts the Canadian approach with what he describes as the “Wild West approach” often seen in the United States. South of the border, police and prosecutors are much more open with the media, frequently sharing intricate details of active investigations long before a trial begins. This practice, Dhanu argues, is driven by the political nature of law enforcement in the U.S., where sheriffs and district attorneys are often elected officials who benefit from the publicity that high-profile arrests bring. However, this approach can be problematic, as it may prioritize public relations over the accused’s right to a fair trial.
In Canada, Rob Dhanu, KC, emphasizes that the focus remains firmly on protecting the privacy of both the complainant and the accused. While this cautious approach may frustrate those eager for immediate answers, it is ultimately in service of a higher ideal: ensuring that justice is not only done but is seen to be done in a fair and impartial manner.
As Rob Dhanu wisely notes, the public’s desire for information must be tempered by the understanding that anyone could find themselves or a loved one in the position of the accused. In such a case, the priority would undoubtedly be on receiving a fair trial, free from external influences or prejudgments. This is the kind of legal system that Canada strives to uphold—one where fairness and justice are paramount, even when the spotlight is shining brightly.
This article was based on an article by CBC News titled: Why police aren’t likely to give details any time soon in the world junior hockey sex assault case
