EXCLUSIVE: COUTTS 4 UPDATE FROM RAY McGINNIS

a top investigative journalist reporting convoy news

I am working on a convoy trial round-up piece and will have it finished soon. Tamara and Chris are doing well so far — but I know the length of this thing is a burden. Expensive to fund and long stays away from home.

A trial at first feels exciting and then as the days go by — it’s kind of like serving in Vietnam — hours of boredom punctuated by bursts of drama. There is something about the air filtration system in Courtroom Five that made me sleepy, or perhaps it was just the oppressive waiting for the Crown to get its act together — day after day. No offense meant, but there was an element of Inspector Columbo but without the clever sneak-attack ever happening.

Our friend Ray McGinnis is steadfastly reporting on the slightly orphaned side of anti-Covid-policy protests, namely the Coutts Four, a group not affiliated with the Ottawa protest except perhaps in spirit but worthy of our attention. A recent court decision prevents me from reporting here Ray’s already published work. We are now into publication bans which means a blackout for journalists covering this part of the case.

A ban like this happened during the Bernardo/Homolka proceedings and it meant American journalists were publishing stories that we would have to wait to see on the evening news from Buffalo. Our reporters were silenced. It was ridiculous but as a former justice reporter I can tell you our courts tend to be some of the most uptight in the world.

In fact, a friend of mine was charged and then harassed, in my opinion, for being too good at his job. They actually arrested him and later ruined his life. Stephen Williams was appropriately critical of the crown’s handling of the case and they never let him forget it.

We based our very successful, 1997, The Fifth Estate story on it. The show got the highest ratings in its history. Here is a short recap we did about ten years ago for a CBC anniversary. The other woman talking is Susan Teskey, my producer. Susan is one of the most talented journalists in the country and she was my favourite person to go into the field with.

Free speech and anti-censorship must take priority over problems the courts think they can’t resolve — like picking a neutral jury. What were the defendant’s positions on this?

Here is Ray’s note to me but written especially for ya’ll.

On October 6th the Globe and Mail reported the Supreme Court ruled that publication bans are now to apply to all pre-trial motions automatically. This would possibly mean some of the information I reported in my article in Propaganda in Focus - which you interviewed me about - would not be information I could publish in the future.

Independent reporter, Mocha Bezrigan, had been at the Lethbridge courthouse from November 1 to 3rd attending pretrial motions for the Coutts Four case. He tweeted on the morning of November 3rd, that on November 2nd the recent Supreme Court "ruling was mentioned as a reminder in the Coutts 4 case who’ve been in remand for almost 2 years without a conviction.”

In the La Presse inc. v. Quebec case the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that “publication bans like the one imposed by s. 648(1) are limitations on court openness that protect the right of the accused to, and society’s interest in, a fair trial.” The ruling from this case has automatically brought a complete blackout to the Coutts 4 case."

Mocha Bezrigan, tweeted, "I’m in the courtroom of the Coutts 4 right now, and the things that are taking place would be in the magnitude of a bombshell in the political arena, but I can’t report on it like I’d have been able to during July’s pre-trial due to the automatic ban."

Going forward, it will likely be crickets for the general public who want to know about developments in the Coutts Four case. Unless some reporter wants to risk getting a fine, or maybe jail time?

End of note and thank you, Ray!

Here is Ray on Twitter — worth a follow to find his next article.

The Lich/Barber trial is slow-moving and at times a trainwreck, through no fault of Justice Heather Perkins-McVey, who made a bold ruling on Friday. It favours openness and suggests more of what I was feeling from her - that she is aware of the historic importance of this case. She seems to respect the accused’s right to a fair proceeding. Well, fair could be argued since there should be no trial at all, but you get the gist.

Heading back down in a week or so and in the meantime, will be updating you from time to time using sources and reporting I have confidence in.

Stay critical.