R. v. Hennessey (S.W.) et al., (2008) 478 A.R. 47 (QB)

• Judge: Ross, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: May 29, 2008
• Citations: (2008), 478 A.R. 47 (QB);2008 ABQB 312

R. v. Hennessey (S.W.) (2008), 478 A.R. 47 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2009] A.R. TBEd. OC.153

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. Shawn Hennessey and Dennis Cheeseman (applicants/accused)

(070845441U2; 2008 ABQB 312)

Indexed As: R. v. Hennessey (S.W.) et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Edmonton

Ross, J.

May 29, 2008.

Summary:

Four RCMP officers, conducting a search on Roszko's rural property, were ambushed and shot and killed by Roszko. Roszko then killed himself. Hennessey gave Roszko a rifle and ammunition and Hennessey and Cheeseman (the accused) drove Roszko to his property. Although neither Hennessey nor Cheeseman were present when the shootings took place, they were charged in relation to the murder based on allegations that both knew that the RCMP were presently investigating the scene, knew Roszko intended to burn the Quonset housing his marijuana grow operation, and knew that an armed confrontation was a real possibility. Both accused applied for an order under s. 487.3 of the Criminal Code to restrict public access to and publication of an Information to Obtain a DNA warrant, an Affidavit and Information to Obtain a Production Order and related documents.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench declined to issue a sealing order, but held that "given the nature of the information in issue, and the circumstances of this case, publication of the contents of the Informations would represent a serious risk to the fair trial rights of the applicants that outweighs the public right to freedom of expression. Accordingly, a publication ban is ordered relating to the entire contents of the DNA Information and the Production Order Information".

Editor's Note: The accused subsequently pleaded guilty to manslaughter and were sentenced in a judgment reported (2009), 458 A.R. 260. This judgment is being reported at this time because it had been subject to a publication ban.

Civil Rights - Topic 2490.1

Freedom of the press - Limitations - Criminal matters - Publication ban - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4492 ].

Courts - Topic 1404

Administration - General - Public access to judicial proceedings (incl. court records) - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4492 ].

Courts - Topic 1408

Administration - General - Sealing of documents - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4492 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4490

Procedure - Trial - Publicity restrictions (incl. ban on publication of names) - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4492 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4492

Procedure - Trial - Restrictions on publications affecting fairness of trial - The accused, charged with offences respecting their involvement in the highly publicized killing of four RCMP officers, applied under s. 487.3 of the Criminal Code for a sealing order (full or partial) or, alternatively, a publication ban respecting the complete contents of an Information to Obtain a DNA warrant and an Affidavit and Information to Obtain a Production Order - At issue was whether the information should be unsealed and, if so, whether a publication ban should issue - The accused's concern was pretrial publicity respecting the wiretap authorizations and the conversations recorded as a result - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench rejected a sealing order, as any salutary effects would be outweighed by the deleterious effects on the rights and interests of the public, including the right to free expression - No harm would result from unsealing the Informations, after editing to remove the names of police informants and the therapist (and his clinic) who provided services to one of the accused - Any fair trial concerns could be addressed by a publication ban - The court, applying the Dagenais/Mentuck test, held that "given the nature of the information in issue, and the circumstances of this case, publication of the contents of the Informations would represent a serious risk to the fair trial rights of the applicants that outweighs the public right to freedom of expression. Accordingly, a publication ban is ordered relating to the entire contents of the DNA Information and the Production Order Information" - There were no suitable alternative measures to prevent the pretrial disclosure of the information, particularly given the extensive media coverage of the case - The fact that the publication ban applied only until the matter went to trial merely delayed public access to the information - There was no denial of public access.

Criminal Law - Topic 5275

Evidence and witnesses - Interception of private communications (incl. video surveillance) - Application for - Confidentiality of supporting material (incl. access to sealed packet) - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4492 ].

Evidence - Topic 16

General and definitions - Ban on publication - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4492 ].

Cases Noticed:

Doe v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in Canada et al. (2003), 341 A.R. 395; 2003 ABQB 794, refd to. [para. 4].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Dagenais et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835; 175 N.R. 1; 76 O.A.C. 81; 120 D.L.R.(4th) 12, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Mentuck (C.G.), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 442; 277 N.R. 160; 163 Man.R.(2d) 1; 269 W.A.C. 1; 2001 SCC 76, refd to. [para. 9].

National Post Co. et al. v. Ontario (Attorney General), [2003] O.T.C. 495; 176 C.C.C.(3d) 432 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 16].

Michaud v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 3; 201 N.R. 241; 138 D.L.R.(4th) 423, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Adam (W.A.) et al., [2006] B.C.T.C. 601; 208 C.C.C.(3d) 272; 2006 BCSC 601, dist. [para. 22].

R. v. Toronto Star Newspaper Ltd. et al., [2005] 2 S.C.R. 188; 335 N.R. 201; 200 O.A.C. 348; 2005 SCC 41, refd to. [para. 24].

MacIntyre v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General), Grainger and Canada (Attorney General) et al., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 175; 40 N.R. 181; 49 N.S.R.(2d) 609; 96 A.P.R. 609; 132 D.L.R.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 40].

Phillips et al. v. Richard, J., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 97; 180 N.R. 1; 141 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 403 A.P.R. 1; 124 D.L.R.(4th) 129, refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. White (M.J.) (2006), 380 A.R. 188; 363 W.A.C. 188; 2006 ABCA 65, refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. White (M.J.) (2007), 420 A.R. 1; 2007 ABQB 359, refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. White (M.J.), [2008] A.R. Uned. 37; 2008 ABCA 102, refd to. [para. 56].

MacDonell v. Flahiff (1998), 157 D.L.R.(4th) 483; 123 C.C.C.(3d) 79 (Que. C.A.), leave to appeal dismissed (1998), 232 N.R. 197 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 60].

Ottawa Citizen Group Inc. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2005), 201 O.A.C. 208; 75 O.R.(3d) 590; 255 D.L.R.(4th) 149 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 64].

Ottawa Citizen et al. v. R., [2007] O.T.C. Uned. L46; 75 W.C.B.(2d) 631 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Oickle (R.F.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 3; 259 N.R. 227; 187 N.S.R.(2d) 201; 585 A.P.R. 201; 2000 SCC 38, refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. White (M.J.) (2005), 376 A.R. 63; 360 W.A.C. 63; 2005 ABCA 435, dist. [para. 77].

R. v. McClenaghan (M.A.) (2008), 429 A.R. 76; 421 W.A.C. 76; 2008 ABCA 141, dist. [para. 78].

Sunday Times v. United Kingdom, [1979] 2 E.H.R.R. 245 (E.C.H.R.), refd to. [para. 86].

Application Under Section 83.28 of the Criminal Code, Re, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 332; 322 N.R. 161; 199 B.C.A.C. 1; 326 W.A.C. 1; 2004 SCC 43, refd to. [para. 89].

Vancouver Sun, Re - see Application Under Section 83.28 of the Criminal Code, Re.

Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1326; 102 N.R. 321; 103 A.R. 321; 64 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 89].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. New Brunswick (Attorney General), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 480; 203 N.R. 169; 182 N.B.R.(2d) 81; 463 A.P.R. 81; 139 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 89].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (5th Ed.) (Looseleaf Supp.), p. 38.7(a) [para. 86].

Counsel:

David A. LaBrenz, for the respondent/Crown (Alberta Justice);

James N. Shaw, for the respondent/Crown (Justice Canada);

D'arcy Depoe (Fleming Depoe Gubbins), for the applicant/accused, Shawn Hennessey;

Peter Northcott, for the applicant/accused, Dennis Cheeseman;

Matthew Woodley, for the respondent, Canadian Broadcasting Corp. and Edmonton Journal.

This application was heard on April 18 and 25, 2008, before Ross, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on May 29, 2008.