Judge sets new date for ruling on Aylmer press freedom case

2(b)ornot2(b)—that is the question.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms section enshrining freedom of the press as a fundamental right was central in both the defence and Crown arguments at the trial Wednesday of two Aylmer journalists accused of obstructing justice. At stake, said their defence lawyer, is the protection of that right, especially in light of recent attacks worldwide on press freedom. Gordon Cudmore said he didn’t want Brett and John Hueston to be found not guilty, but wants “exoneration.”

The Crown argued public safety and police investigations should trump press freedom.

The conclusion of the case against Aylmer Express editor Brett Hueston, 33, and publisher John Hueston, 67, a father-son team who run the small town paper in east Elgin County, should happen when Ontario Court Justice Glen Donald makes his decision next month.

The Huestons were charged with obstructing a police officer on June 24, 2017, while trying to find out what happened when a car drove over a steep cliff, killing the driver. The incident was later declared a suicide, but only after the Special Investigations Unit (SIU), the provincial police watchdog, became involved because it was determined that an OPP officer had been following the car not long before the fatal plunge.

The SIU’s involvement seemed to put everyone on edge at the crash scene on Springfield Road where police and firefighters were attempting to pull the car out of the water when the Huestons drove around a road-closed sign to find out what was going on at the cliff. Within minutes of discussions with at least three police officers, and “the bum’s rush without any explanation” as Cudmore described it, the Huestons were handcuffed, charged, and driven to the St. Thomas OPP detachment where they were detained for hours.

Their cameras were also confiscated and photos taken of the scene, depicting some trucks, were made evidence at the trial. Cudmore told Donald that the Huestons did nothing wrong, and certainly nothing that was obstructing the police from their duties.

Cudmore said it was the duty of the police to protect freedom of the press and “they failed to protect that duty.”

The first officer to tell the Huestons they shouldn’t be at the scene without any explanation was assigned duties to respond to the media’s inquiries, he said. And “in no way, shape or form” did the Huestons stop the officers from carrying out their jobs as they claimed, Cudmore said.

The reason the recovery operation had to shut down for a few minutes was because OPP Insp. Brad Fishleigh forgot to leave his radio used to communicate with the fire crews with another officer when he went to speak to the Huestons.

Cudmore noted that the officers and the fire chief who testified gave different time lines.

“If you accept the evidence of the fire chief, the shutdown was before the journalists arrived,” Cudmore said.

The best estimate on time was from one officer who said it was seven minutes from the time the Huestons arrived until their arrest, he said.

The Huestons were acting “in the public interest and the journalists have the right, duty and obligation to cover it,” Cudmore said. And there was an OPP news release to support their actions — and no where in it did it tell them not to investigate the scene or take photos, he said.

Once they were at the scene, the Huestons weren’t told why they couldn’t stand at the edge of the bean field or anywhere else once where they were confronted. Cudmore told Donald that there are cases when the press can obstruct justice “but in this case, it does not even come close.” “This is not a case of the media interfering with the police, it’s a case of the police interfering with the media carrying out their obligation,” he said.

The two other provincial offences charges the Huestsons pleaded not guilty to, trespassing and driving around a road-closed sign, were “minor charges added on for no good jurisprudential reason,” Cudmore said, and they should be stayed. Assistant Crown attorney Celia Jutras agreed freedom of the press is important but in this case, because of the SIU mandate especially, the Huestons were in the wrong. John Hueston, she said, was adamant he was within his rights, even after they were asked to leave. And Brett Hueston, she said, continued to take photos after he was told to stop.

Freedom of the press, Jutras said, should be “curtailed” in the interest of public safety and to allow police officers to do their jobs properly.

“It’s indisputable the duties of the police officers were made more difficult by the conduct of the Huestons,” she said.

And there shouldn’t be a stay on the provincial offences charges, because this was not an exceptional situation. It was not unusual, she said, for more charges to be laid after an initial arrest. Jutras added that the SIU are usually called in only for the most serious of matters and the Huestons knew that the SIU was involved.

Donald said he wanted time to decide his verdict.

The Huestons return to court on Oct. 22.