Reporters beat obstruction counts
Judge finds journalists did not interfere
ST. THOMAS •Inacasethat had ramifications for freedom of the press, two journalists were acquitted Monday on obstruction of justice charges.
John Hueston, 67, and his 34-year-old son Brett, were found not guilty of obstructing a peace officer and trespassing. The younger Hueston was also found not guilty of driving around a roadclosed sign, an offence under the Highway Traffic Act.
John Hueston is the publisher of the Aylmer Express in Southwestern Ontario and his son is the editor.
The OPP arrested the journalists and seized their cameras on June 24, 2017, just seven minutes after they arrived at an incident where emergency responders were about to retrieve a vehicle that had driven over a cliff into Lake Ontario a day before. A police officer told the men to leave the scene, but they refused and demanded to speak to a supervisor before they were handcuffed and hauled off to jail, the court heard.
In his ruling Monday, Ontario Court Justice Glen Donald said the journalists’ arrest could have been prevented if police had simply provided more information.
“This would be a very different case had the police told the Huestons that their presence at the scene was preventing recovery of the vehicle, the main police obligation of the day,” Donald said.
Instead of telling the journalists where they could go to take photos, or referring them to the OPP’s media officer, police just told them to leave, Donald said.
“I suspect and hope that the Huestons would have respected the police’s order to leave the scene had they been made to understand why it was that, at that moment, they could not be present.”
Ontario’s police watchdog was probing the incident because the vehicle involved had fled from an OPP officer. The Special Investigations Unit’s involvement may have affected the actions of police, Donald said, because the identity of the driver wasn’t being released.
Although police have the right to close a road to traffic during an investigation, the Huestons weren’t trespassing because police didn’t speak with any nearby residents who wanted them to leave the area, Donald said.
“They had every right to be present and observe the actions of the police,” he said.
The pair said they’re happy with the verdict but always believed they hadn’t done anything wrong.
“I want everybody to know that we never did anything that any regular citizen would see as being offensive in any way. We did not do anything to obstruct anybody,” John Hueston said outside the courthouse.
“I’m hoping this will improve the lives of all journalists. If people read this decision, they’ll have a little bit better sense of what our rights are. And hopefully police will pay better attention to what our rights are.”
Defence lawyer Gord Cudmore says the case clarified the role of both the media and police. “You can’t interfere with the police doing their job, but you have the right to report, and the police have obligations, too,” Cudmore said.
“Media has a freedom to go and observe these sort of things and report on them,” said Canadian Association of Journalists president Karyn Pugliese. “Police need to respect the rights of media. They need to let us do our jobs. And I hope that this motivates police forces to educate their officers on the rights of media and to recognize that we have an important and Charter-protected right to inform the public.”