Case-by-Case Privilege: Difference between revisions

From Criminal Law Notebook
m Text replacement - "(R v [A-Z][a-z]+ [A-Z][a-z]+)," to "''$1'',"
Line 22: Line 22:
''R v National Post'', [2010] 1 SCR 477, [http://canlii.ca/t/29l77 2010 SCC 16] (CanLII){{perSCC|Binnie J}}<br>
''R v National Post'', [2010] 1 SCR 477, [http://canlii.ca/t/29l77 2010 SCC 16] (CanLII){{perSCC|Binnie J}}<br>
see "case-by-case privilege" above</ref>
see "case-by-case privilege" above</ref>
Where appropriate, "the courts will respect a promise of confidentiality given to a secret source by a journalist or an editor. However, where the public's interest in protecting sources is outweighed by other interests promises of secrecy cannot be maintained."<ref>R v National Post{{ibid}}</ref>
Where appropriate, "the courts will respect a promise of confidentiality given to a secret source by a journalist or an editor. However, where the public's interest in protecting sources is outweighed by other interests promises of secrecy cannot be maintained."<ref>{{ibid1|National Post}}<br></ref>
   
   
The fourth criteria of the test has found not be made out where a journalist would not reveal a source who had potentially forged documents implicating a former prime minister in a illegal transaction.<ref>
The fourth criteria of the test has found not be made out where a journalist would not reveal a source who had potentially forged documents implicating a former prime minister in a illegal transaction.<ref>
National Post{{ibid}}<br>
{{ibid1|National Post}}<br>
</ref>
</ref>
{{reflist|2}}
{{reflist|2}}

Revision as of 20:18, 13 January 2019

General Principles

A communication that does not fit into one of the class privileges may nonetheless be protected under the "case-by-case privilege" on an ad-hoc basis where the requisite criteria are met.[1]

Case-by-case privilege can be invoked where:[2]

  1. the communication originates in a confidence that the identity of the informant will not be disclosed;
  2. the confidence is essential to the relationship in which the communication arises;
  3. the relationship is one which should be sedulously fostered in the public good; and
  4. the public interest in protecting the identity of the informant from disclosure outweighs the public interest in getting at the truth.
  1. R v Gruenke, 1991 CanLII 40 (SCC), [1991] 3 SCR 263, per Lamer CJ
  2. R v National Post, [2010] 1 SCR 477, 2010 SCC 16 (CanLII), per Binnie J
    Gruenke, ibid.

Journalist Sources

Confidentiality of journalistic sources can be measured on a case-by-case basis based on the "Wigmore criteria".[1] Where appropriate, "the courts will respect a promise of confidentiality given to a secret source by a journalist or an editor. However, where the public's interest in protecting sources is outweighed by other interests promises of secrecy cannot be maintained."[2]

The fourth criteria of the test has found not be made out where a journalist would not reveal a source who had potentially forged documents implicating a former prime minister in a illegal transaction.[3]

  1. R v National Post, [2010] 1 SCR 477, 2010 SCC 16 (CanLII), per Binnie J
    see "case-by-case privilege" above
  2. National Post, ibid.
  3. National Post, ibid.