View source for Excluding People From Court

{{LevelOne}}
{{HeaderPublication}}
<!--****-->
==General Principles==
{{seealso|Role of Trial Judge}}

The "open court principle" creates a rebuttable presumption that all proceedings in Court, as well as all filings with the court, are to be open to the public.<ref>
see [[Public and Media Restrictions]]
</ref>
There exist circumstances where other interests will overide this principle, resulting in limitations on the public's access to the Courts. Witnesses who are to testify in trial are regularly excluded from the trial Court before they testify. Members of the public are excluded from Court where the evidence before the judge are of a particularly sensitive character. In the most extreme example, there is also the ability to exclude the accused and defence counsel from the proceedings where any public knowledge of the contents could be dangerous, such as when dealing with confidential informers. 

{{reflist|2}}

==Exclusion of Parties==
The trial judge can order the exclusion of the accused where his conduct makes the proceedings impractical.<ref>See s.650(2)(8); R v Pawliw, [http://canlii.ca/t/22kk5 1985 CanLII 656] (BCSC)</ref>

The accused can likewise voluntarily be absent from the trial with the court's consent.<ref>R v Drabinsky, [http://canlii.ca/t/208km 2008 CanLII 40225] (ON SC)</ref> However, depending on how the proceedings go in the absence of the accused, there may be a ground of appeal.<ref>R v Valeanu, [http://canlii.ca/t/6jwm 1995 CanLII 614] (ON CA)</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==Excluding Witnesses==
Before the commencement of trial it is normally expected that all prospective witnesses will be excluded from the courtroom. On application of either party, the judge has discretion to order the exclusion of witnesses.<ref>
R v Hoyt (1949), 93 CCC 306{{NOCANLII}}<br>
R v Dobberthien,  [1975] 2 SCR 560, [http://canlii.ca/t/1z1gh 1974 CanLII 184] (SCC), [1974] S.J.C. No. 115<br>
R v Leitner, [http://canlii.ca/t/1ntzw 1998 CanLII 13871] (SK QB), [1998] S.J. No. 735 (Sask. Q.B.)<br>
The Law of Evidence in Canada, Sopinka Lederman & Bryant, Butterworths, 2nd edition, at page 826‑827<br>
Canadian Criminal Evidence, McWilliams (3d edition) Canada Law Book at pages 36‑2.1 - 36‑3<br>
R v B.L.W.D., [http://canlii.ca/t/1z9t9 2008 SKPC 56] (CanLII) at para 3
</ref>

The judge does not need to give reasons for ordering the exclusion of witnesses, however, the refusal to grant the order must include grounds for making such an order.<ref>
Re Learn and The Queen, (1981), 63 CCC (2d) 191 (Ont. H.C.J.)<br>
Re Collette and the Queen; Re Richard and the Queen, (1983), 6 CCC (3d) 300 (Ont. H.C.){{NOCANLII}}<br>
B.L.W.D. at para 3<br>
</ref>

The reason for excluding witnesses is because a witnesses ability to hear the evidence of other witnesses before testifying can negatively affect the credibility of the witness.<Ref>
R v Smuk (1971), 3 CCC (2d) 457 (BCCA)<br>
R v Grabowski, (1983), 8 CCC (3d) 78<br>
Re Collette and the Queen{{supra}}, at p. 306<br>
</ref>

Where a current witness was present for the testimony of a previous witness, the current witness's evidence should be given less weight.<ref>
B.L.W.D. at para 3<br> 
R v Spark, [http://canlii.ca/t/1l7qb 2000 CanLII 19619] (SK PC), [2000] S.J. No. 492 (Sask. Prov. Ct.)<br>
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==Excluding Public from Court==
Section 486 sets out the basic premise that all criminal proceedings are held in open court but persons can be excluded where it is "in the interest of public morals, the maintenance of order, the proper administration of justice" or injury to international relations or national defence/security.
 
{{quotation|
'''Exclusion of public'''<br>
486 (1) Any proceedings against an accused shall be held in open court, but the presiding judge or justice may, on application of the prosecutor or a witness or on his or her own motion, order the exclusion of all or any members of the public from the court room for all or part of the proceedings, or order that the witness testify behind a screen or other device that would allow the witness not to be seen by members of the public, if the judge or justice is of the opinion that such an order is in the interest of public morals, the maintenance of order or the proper administration of justice or is necessary to prevent injury to international relations or national defence or national security.
<br>
'''Application'''<br>
(1.1) The application may be made, during the proceedings, to the presiding judge or justice or, before the proceedings begin, to the judge or justice who will preside at the proceedings or, if that judge or justice has not been determined, to any judge or justice having jurisdiction in the judicial district where the proceedings will take place.
<br>
'''Factors to be considered'''<br>
(2) In determining whether the order is in the interest of the proper administration of justice, the judge or justice shall consider
:(a) society’s interest in encouraging the reporting of offences and the participation of victims and witnesses in the criminal justice process;
:(b) the safeguarding of the interests of witnesses under the age of 18 years in all proceedings;
:(c) the ability of the witness to give a full and candid account of the acts complained of if the order were not made;
:(d) whether the witness needs the order for their security or to protect them from intimidation or retaliation;
:(e) the protection of justice system participants who are involved in the proceedings;
:(f) whether effective alternatives to the making of the proposed order are available in the circumstances;
:(g) the salutary and deleterious effects of the proposed order; and
:(h) any other factor that the judge or justice considers relevant.

'''Reasons to be stated'''<br>
(3) If an accused is charged with an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155 or 159, subsection 160(2) or (3) or section 163.1, 170, 171, 171.1, 172, 172.1, 172.2, 173, 271, 272, 273, 279.01, 279.011, 279.02, 279.03, 286.1, 286.2 or 286.3 and the prosecutor or the accused applies for an order under subsection (1), the judge or justice shall, if no such order is made, state, by reference to the circumstances of the case, the reason for not making an order.
<br>
'''No adverse inference'''<br>
(4) No adverse inference may be drawn from the fact that an order is, or is not, made under this section.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 486;  R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 203, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 14, c. 23 (4th Supp.), s. 1; 1992, c. 1, s. 60(F), c. 21, s. 9; 1993, c. 45, s. 7; 1997, c. 16, s. 6; 1999, c. 25, s. 2(Preamble); 2001, c. 32, s. 29, c. 41, ss. 16, 34, 133; 2002, c. 13, s. 20; 2005, c. 32, s. 15, c. 43, ss. 4, 8; 2010, c. 3, s. 4; 2012, c. 1, s. 28; 2014, c. 25, s. 21; 2015, c. 13, s. 13, c. 20, s. 21.
|[http://canlii.ca/t/7vf2#sec486 CCC]
}}

These provisions can be used at any time in a proceeding, including trial and sentencing.

'''Courtroom Access'''<br>
The public cannot be excluded under s. 486(1) on the mere basis that the witness must give evidence of sexual behaviour that is embarrassing.<Ref>
R v Quesnel, (1979), 51 CCC (2d) 270{{NOCANLII}}
</ref> Or simply because the offence is of a sexual nature.<ref>
R v Warawuk, [http://canlii.ca/t/fp4n0 1978 ALTASCAD 228] (CanLII)
</ref>
However, where a complainant in a sexual offence has difficulty giving evidence due to embarrassment, it may be in the interest of justice to exclude the public.<ref>
R v Lefebvre, (1984), 17 CCC (3d) 277 (Que. C.A.){{NOCANLII}}<br>
R v Warawuk{{supra}}
</ref> 

Where a jury is being vetted for bias, the public may be excluded.<ref>
R v Musitano, [http://canlii.ca/t/g1gs9 1985 CanLII 1983] (ON CA)
</ref>

Absent an order from the court, it is improper to lock any of the doors to the courtroom normally used by the public to access the court while a witness is testifying. Actions of this nature that impede public access to the courts can result in a mistrial.<Ref>
R v P.D.T., [http://canlii.ca/t/27lh7 2010 ABQB 37] (CanLII) - crown locked one of two doors for public access to the court in order to make complainant more comfortable.
</ref>

'''Publication'''<Br>
Should the publication of names of witnesses may endanger them, the judge may prohibit their publication under s. 486(2).<Ref>
e.g. see  R v McArthur, (1984) 13 CCC (3d) 152 (Ont. H.C.J.) per Dupont J.</ref>

There is no power to prohibit the publication of the accused's name unless it is to protect the identity of another party.<ref>
R v London Free Press Printing Co. (H.C.J.), [http://canlii.ca/t/g1hr2 1990 CanLII 6653] (ON SC)<br>
Re R. and Unnamed Person, (1985), 22 CCC (3d) 284{{NOCANLII}} at p. 288
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

===''In Camera'' Hearings===
An ''in camera'' hearing prohibits the accused from being present in court during the evidence. These hearings are not under legislation but are a judge-created procedure.<ref>
R v Seaboyer, [http://canlii.ca/t/1fskf 1991 CanLII 76] (SCC), [1991] 2 SCR 577 at para 96 ("Such procedures do not require legislation.  It has always been open to the courts to devise such procedures as may be necessary to ensure a fair trial.   The requirement of a voir dire before a confession can be admitted, for example, is judge-made law.")</ref>

An ''in camera'' hearing is similar but different from a voir dire.<ref>
R v McCartie, [http://canlii.ca/t/g09nm 2013 BCPC 221] (CanLII), at para 36
</ref> It is a trial of a single issue.<ref>
McCartie at para 37</ref> The judge has the discretion to decide whether written or oral evidence is needed.<ref>
McCartie at para 38 - oral evidence should be given where credibility is an issue
</ref>

Evidence that may reveal the identity of confidential informers will sometimes held ''in camera'', such as in the review of affidavits for wiretaps.<ref>
Described in R v Garofoli, [http://canlii.ca/t/1fss5 1990 CanLII 52] (SCC), [1990] 2 SCR 1421<br> 
affirmed in R v Leipert, [http://canlii.ca/t/1fr41 1997 CanLII 367] (SCC), [1997] 1 SCR 281<br>
R v Basi, [http://canlii.ca/t/26mxq 2009 SCC 52] (CanLII), [2009] 3 SCR 389<br>
</ref> 
The rationale for such an ''in camera'' hearing is that the risk posed to informers far outweighs the right to full answer and defence and the exception to privilege for innocence at stake.<ref>
Leipert{{supra}}<br>
Basi{{supra}}<br>
R v Edwards Books and Art Ltd [http://canlii.ca/t/1ftpt 1986 CanLII 12] (SCC), [1986] 2 SCR 713 at para 117<br>
</ref>

During an ''in camera'' hearing it may be desirable for the judge to conduct an inquisitorial-style examination.<ref>
R v McCartie, [http://canlii.ca/t/g1m55 2013 BCPC 289] (CanLII),
</ref>

Once evidence is given ''in camera'', it is rare that the accused will ever get access to any information provided.<ref>
R v McLellan, [http://canlii.ca/t/fw0n1 2013 BCSC 175] (CanLII), at paras 36 – 38<br>
</ref>

For the sake of trial fairness, it may be necessary for a judge who is not the trial judge to preside over the ''in camera'' hearing.<ref>
e.g. McCartie{{supra}}, at paras 22 to 32<br>
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==Exclusion by a Youth Court Justice==
{{Quotation|
'''Exclusion from hearing'''<br>
132 (1) Subject to subsection (2), a court or justice before whom proceedings are carried out under this Act may exclude any person from all or part of the proceedings if the court or justice considers that the person’s presence is unnecessary to the conduct of the proceedings and the court or justice is of the opinion that
:(a) any evidence or information presented to the court or justice would be seriously injurious or seriously prejudicial to
::(i) the young person who is being dealt with in the proceedings,
::(ii) a child or young person who is a witness in the proceedings, or
::(iii) a child or young person who is aggrieved by or the victim of the offence charged in the proceedings; or
:(b) it would be in the interest of public morals, the maintenance of order or the proper administration of justice to exclude any or all members of the public from the court room.

'''Exception'''<Br>
(2) Subject to section 650 (accused to be present) of the Criminal Code and except if it is necessary for the purposes of subsection 34(9) (nondisclosure of medical or psychological report) of this Act, a court or justice may not, under subsection (1), exclude from proceedings under this Act
:(a) the prosecutor;
:(b) the young person who is being dealt with in the proceedings, the counsel or a parent of the young person or any adult assisting the young person under subsection 25(7);
:(c) the provincial director or his or her agent; or
:(d) the youth worker to whom the young person’s case has been assigned.

'''Exclusion after adjudication or during review'''<br>
(3) A youth justice court, after it has found a young person guilty of an offence, or a youth justice court or a review board, during a review, may, in its discretion, exclude from the court or from a hearing of the review board any person other than the following, when it is being presented with information the knowledge of which might, in its opinion, be seriously injurious or seriously prejudicial to the young person:
:(a) the young person or his or her counsel;
:(b) the provincial director or his or her agent;
:(c) the youth worker to whom the young person’s case has been assigned; and
:(d) the Attorney General.

'''Exception'''<br>
(4) The exception set out in paragraph (3)(a) is subject to subsection 34(9) (nondisclosure of medical or psychological report) of this Act and section 650 (accused to be present) of the Criminal Code.
|[http://canlii.ca/t/52hl0 YCJA]
}}