Judge reserves decision on publication ban in murder case

A judge will reveal next month whether or not local media can report facts in the case of two youths and four adults charged in connection with the November 2016 killing of a Stewart Street man before their matters have made it through the courts.

Madam Justice Esther Rosenberg heard arguments Wednesday afternoon for and against a publication ban in the case of a 17-yearold boy who pleaded guilty earlier this month to manslaughter for his role in the killing of Terry Pringle, 42.

The father of three, whose body was found at about 1:30 a.m. on Nov. 26, 2016, died of blunt force trauma, city police said.

The judge reserved her decision until Oct. 18 at 2:15 p.m. after hearing arguments by assistant Crown attorney Kelly Eberhard and Lois Tuffin of Peterborough This Week, who is challenging the ban – which the judge has implemented temporarily in the meantime.

In her submissions, the prosecutor cited the Dagenais vs. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation case of 1994, the leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on publication bans and their relation to the right to freedom of expression under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Eberhard argued that the coaccused’s right to be presumed innocent may be compromised in the future, should they decide to be tried before a jury.

If the community becomes a pool for potential jurors, an argument could be made that they could be biased based on what they have learned about the case in the media, which could affect their ability to remain impartial, she said.

A ban was issued in 1994 because judges decided a fair trial “would have been impossible” if the facts were not restrained, Eberhard said. The publication ban is not a “full stop,” she added. “It’s only until ... the last individual is dealt with.”

Tuffin disagreed, citing the same case law and arguing that reporting what happened prior to Pringle’s death will not jeopardize the ability of the co-accused to have a fair trial. She said she is not sure this case meets the threshold needed for a ban to be ordered.

Acknowledging that the presumption of innocence forms the basis “for everything,” Tuffin pointed out how in Dagenais, the court set out a two-part test for a ban to be granted.

The first part is that such a ban is needed to prevent a real and substantial risk to the fairness of the trial, because readily available alternative measures will not prevent the risk.

Tuffin pointed out how jurors are screened during the selection process to ensure they are not biased, calling a publication ban “an extreme remedy.”

In the second part, the salutory effects of the ban outweigh the deleterious effects to the free expression of those affected by the ban.

Citing a Toronto murder case where a man pleaded guilty for his role in a plan to kill a man before his co-accused and a publication was not implemented, Tuffin argued that the public is entitled to have the information as soon as it becomes available.

During brief reply arguments, Eberhard said the facts of the Toronto case can be distinguished from the Peterborough one, before going on to say the media’s “hunger” to publish facts should be seen as less important than ones right to a fair trial.

Responding to the suggestion that the case could be tried in another jurisdiction if a publication ban is not ordered, Eberhard argued that the Crown does its best to try individuals in the community where the offence took place. “This is an offence that should be tried here.”

Rosenberg indicated she plans to review cases before making her decision.

The Crown will be making the same application for a publication ban in the case of the other co-accused who have not pleaded guilty thus far, Eberhard indicated.

That includes the matter of Samantha Hall, 26, who admitted to planning the attack as she pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit an indictable offence causing bodily harm Aug. 23. She will be sentenced Oct. 31.

The 17-year-old who appeared Wednesday will be sentenced Nov. 14 at 2:15 p.m.

A 16-year-old boy, who faces charges of murder and conspiracy to commit murder, formally reelected to face a judge-alone trial in Peterborough Ontario Court of Justice scheduled for seven days, starting on Jan. 15.

The youths cannot be named under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

A preliminary hearing, which determines if there is sufficient evidence to set the matter down for trial before a Superior Court judge, is scheduled for Nov. 27 to Dec. 1, Dec. 6 and Dec. 11 to 15 for three adult co-accused in the case.

They are also scheduled to return to provincial court Oct. 27 for a status hearing.

Jordan Osborne, 25, of Aylmer St, faces charges of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit an indictable offence.

JosephCrawford,29,ofDalhousie St., faces charges of accessory after the fact to murder and conspiracy to commit an indictable offence.

Christopher Bolton, 30, of Bethune St., faces charges of accessory after the fact to murder and conspiracy to commit an indictable offence.