The Legal Blotter

Other provinces have decided that publication bans, even in sexual assault cases, should not be used to deny the public access to court files. they reason that the onus is on the journalist or member of the public to refrain from publishing the banned material, and that there are already stiff penalties under the Criminal Code to prevent that from happening.

But in B.C., the government leaves it up to court clerks or other registry staff to decide whether the public can get access.

Prior to Jan. 4, when the charges were introduced, anyone who wanted to run a name or file number through B.C.’s Court Services Online website could do so free of charge for criminal and traffic cases. The system would display the name of the accused and co-accused, the charges or traffic tickets against them, date and location of the offence, recent and upcoming court dates, and any sentence or conditions handed out by courts across the province.

Now, those same searches cost $6 per file. The money is not refundable if you accidentally click on the wrong case, nor do you get a break if a common name requires you to open multiple files to find the one you are looking for.

That was done on purpose, according to B.C.’s Ministry of Attorney General.

The fees are supposed to “discourage casual use of the system,” said spokesman Shawn Robins.

“This benefits the system and responds to privacy concerns.”

When introduced in 2005, the government had trumpeted the service as a way to increase the transparency of the courts and provide convenient access for those unable to easily visit a courthouse in person.

But now that the online database has gained popularity, the ministry claims too many people are taking advantage of its ability to search court records. Robins recalled last Valentine’s Day, when a flood of people apparently decided to run names through the court registry to see if the person they were about to spend a romantic evening with had a criminal record.

The “fishing” expeditions on the court website clog the system with extra traffic and reduce the speed for professional legal clients, Robins said.

However, when the Times Colonist asked for statistical proof of that slowdown, staff in the attorney general’s office were unable to provide data that showed casual usage had increased traffic beyond the technical capabilities of government computer servers.

Accessing the province’s Court Services Online website from his office let him quickly get “information that was absolutely necessary” to his practice, instead of having to spend time lining up at the court registry in person.

Many say they won’t pay the $6 fee that was imposed on Jan. 4.

“Never am I going to pay a dime for something that nobody else pays for,” Mills said. “Why are they singling out defence lawyers? CSO was very, very helpful when it was there. now I will make sure that I get whatever information I need from the registry.”

So now, he lines up at the Victoria court registry to check information — either getting the files from court staff, or accessing them for free on a registry computer that he argues is “consistently inoperable,” despite a sign that declares it is fast, easy and convenient.

“So court staff, instead of doing what they are supposed to be doing, are responding to requests from defence counsel and the public. And that’s costing them more than $6 a request, I would guess. Or they are running back and forth to get files, which could be avoided if they just give CSO back to defence counsel,” Mills said.

Instead, the registries placed onerous, and sometimes insurmountable, hurdles in the way of accessing documents.

The roadblocks all but prevent ordinary British Columbians from scrutinizing how police search homes and businesses and what arguments they are using in court to convince a judge or justice of the peace that such searches are necessary.

According to a 2001 circular to all B.C. courthouse staff, each of B.C.’s 44 provincial courthouses is required to maintain a free public file that displays copies of recent unsealed search warrants in chronological order, within 24 hours of those warrants being deemed public documents by a court.

The policy is supposed to increase convenience at courthouse registries, free the public from having to ask for individual warrants, and bring B.C.’s justice system into line with a 1982 Supreme Court of Canada ruling that said courthouses should have their records available for easy inspection by the public.

But there are no such binders for search warrants in courthouses in Victoria, Western Communities, Duncan, Nanaimo, Port Alberni and Vancouver. Courtenay, Surrey and North Vancouver do follow the rules and provide the files. new Westminster does too; however, its file hasn’t been updated since October.

Hundreds of courthouse staff across the province’s 44 court locations co-ordinate files and exhibits, collect payments for fines, and prepare and distribute judges’ orders. they are, in short, the gatekeepers of courthouse information.

Yet a Times Colonist investigation found clerks around the province don’t make the same decisions: they frequently denied access to files that should have been available, misinterpreted publication bans, cited incorrect policies and applied unnecessary and onerous restrictions on obtaining public records. in fact, the public’s ability to get information depends on which courthouse they visit and who is working at the time, the Times Colonist investigation found