Media and the courts often have an uneasy relationship, over issues of access and accountability. But last month three of Alberta’s top judges spoke at Mount Royal University, offering a peek behind the judicial curtain — and a look at why they’re not so different after all.
The presentation, entitled “Alberta Courts and the Media: A Candid Conversation” saw three judges explain how the court system works, while addressing its challenges and ways journalists and judges can better explain the system to the public.
Judges cannot often be as open as they would like, said Justice Michele Hollins, but they nonetheless look for opportunities to make themselves available while educating the public.
“Events like this are absolutely critical,” she said. “I think we’re all very happy to participate and share information about the system.”
We live in a time of falling trust in institutions, and the justice system and media have both seen their public standing drop in recent years. Statistics Canada data shows public confidence in the justice system and courts sits at 49 per cent, slightly higher than previous year, while trust in Canadian media falls around 37 per cent.
A better understanding of these institutions can help build public trust, Hollins said. Accurate, clear, fact-based reporting on the courts goes a long way.
“Trust between the institutions … that is just about understanding the systems and the terminology and those kinds of things, and reporting factually,” she said.
Principles of the justice system
The presentation included representation from all three levels of Alberta’s courts — Hollins from the Court of King’s Bench, alongside Chief Justice James Hunter of the Alberta Court of Justice and Justice Bernette Ho with the Court of Appeal.
While each judge gave an overview of how their respective court operates, they also explained lesser known or misunderstood aspects of the judicial system.
One of these was the principle of judicial independence. Ho explained how it is important each branch of government — executive, legislative and judicial — stay separate from one another, using the analogy of a three-legged stool to illustrate how if the branches become too close the democratic system won’t function.
Judicial independence, Ho said, ensures the judicial branch remains autonomous.
According to the Canadian Bar Association, judicial independence “guarantees that judges are free to decide honestly and impartially” within the law and without any outside influence, whether from public opinion or authority figures.
Ho said this is why judges avoid speaking in public engagements or to the media — they want to be as impartial as possible.
It also means there are differing views on how open a courtroom should be. The key, Ho said, is striking a balance between journalists’ desire for openness and judges’ obligation to uphold the court’s integrity.
“It’s no question that principles and issues can be in conflict,” Ho said. “But we come back to trying to apply tests in a very principled manner.”
A ‘proactive’ approach to misconceptions
One aspect of the judicial process most people talk about but misunderstand is how bail works, said Hunter in the presentation.
At its core, he explained, bail is a contract allowing for the release of someone facing charges, while guaranteeing their return to court and adherence to specific release conditions.
Bail is not a get-out-of-jail-free card, Hunter said, but it does help to protect a person’s Charter rights, presuming their innocence until they are proven guilty.
Ho and Hollins both agree bail is still misunderstood amongst the public, but reporters can play a role in correcting those misconceptions.
“Not feeding those misapprehensions and even taking proactive steps to correct them where you see them is helpful, I think, for faith in institutions,” Hollins said.
A relationship based on mutual understanding
Despite their differences, Ho said journalism and the courts share many common goals, and utilize similar processes.
Before attending law school, Ho completed an undergraduate degree in communications. She said many of the same principles apply, particularly when it comes to writing straightforward judgements for the public.
“You’re thinking about your audience,” she said. “A lot of the stuff that I’ve learned in communications, one hundred per cent has application now.”
There is also a shift to incorporate a trauma-informed approach into the writing process, said Hollins — which is also being adopted in the journalism sphere.
For example, Hollins explained how her court sees a number of sexual assault trials, so it is important to consider how her written verdict could potentially affect witnesses and victims.
She added impartiality is a key similarity too, although for reporters there is more demand for opinion-type pieces.
“Impartiality demands that I can think whatever I think about that, but that cannot enter my decision making process,” she said. “It’s kind of the same for the writing process, I think, or it should be.”
Recognizing where the two overlap is important, Ho said, but it’s also essential to understand where each side is coming from when differences do appear.
“Media needs to understand the judges are there to do a particular job, and judges need to understand that the media is there to do a particular job,” she said.