Daniel Leblanc may end up in jail

[Stonewall]

The confidentiality of journalistic sources absolutely should not be protected.  Journalists who argue for it are a bunch of hypocrits--demand the truth and transparancy from everyone else but don't feel it should apply to them.

Well, it is often how they get people to give them information...

The confidentiality of journalistic sources absolutely should not be protected.  Journalists who argue for it are a bunch of hypocrits--demand the truth and transparancy from everyone else but don't feel it should apply to them.

Police informants also get shielded from scrutiny, often for reasons of safety, though, and nobody cries foul about that. I suppose a judge could insist that the source be named to them and then placed in a sealed court record if it was sensitive information, but I wouldn't want to be the one asking for a violation of journalistic integrity.

I absolutely disagree.  I have never had a court refuse to order a police department or prosecutor's office to identify a confidential informant when information obtained by said informant was relied on or used to prosecute one of my clients. 

[viper37]

Daniel Leblanc is the journalist who uncovered the sponsorship scandal.  He was ordered by a judge to reveal his confidential source, someone called "Ma Chouette".
He doesn't want to.

So, the judge will likely sentence him to serve time in jail.  A shame really.  I thought confidentiality of a journalist' sources would be protected, but it ain't.

The Gazette

How long can he be incarcerated for this?

Max is one year, IIRC.  They expect the judge to give him a few months.

[viper37]

I absolutely disagree.  I have never had a court refuse to order a police department or prosecutor's office to identify a confidential informant when information obtained by said informant was relied on or used to prosecute one of my clients.

but it was for a criminal matter, not a civil one.  And it was probably really necessary to know that witness name to properly defend your client.  In this case, the name of the informant who first revealed the dubious cases of financing for the Liberal Party isn't relevant to the defense of the company getting squeezed by the gov to get back its money, well our money.

[grumbler]

but it was for a criminal matter, not a civil one.  And it was probably really necessary to know that witness name to properly defend your client.  In this case, the name of the informant who first revealed the dubious cases of financing for the Liberal Party isn't relevant to the defense of the company getting squeezed by the gov to get back its money, well our money.

Yes, it is a case of apples and oranges, but to be fair to Stoney, he isn't the one who brought it up.  His contention is perfectly reasonable and I accept it without hesitation.

The Leblanc case is, as you note, completely different, at least as I understand it  The informant is not providing any information being used in the prosecution.  The sole reason the informant's name or position is important is that the defense is claiming, rather dubiously, that the informant constitutes "the government" as far as the statute of limitations is concerned. 

Personally, I wonder if a compromise is not possible here; the informant agrees to allow Leblanc to reveal his/her position to the court, and the court seals the record unless the judge rules that the defendant's claim is valid.

[DontSayBanana]

Personally, I wonder if a compromise is not possible here; the informant agrees to allow Leblanc to reveal his/her position to the court, and the court seals the record unless the judge rules that the defendant's claim is valid.

That's actually where I was trying to go with that, nearly word for word. Thought I had edited it in, guess I never got around to it.