More information revealed in Quebec’s so-called “secret trial”

Article content

The Quebec Court of Appeal released a redacted version of the original decision made in a criminal case that was heavily criticized and dubbed “the secret trial” because it appeared a case involving a police informant was heard without the public ever knowing.

In June, the Supreme Court of Canada criticized the Court of Appeal for using the term “secret trial” in the decision it delivered in 2022. That decision became the first public record that the case even existed. Canada’s highest court also ordered that a redacted version of the original judge’s decision be released to the public, which the Court of Appeal did on Monday.

Article content

The name of the person involved still does not appear on the document and there is no case number, which would have revealed which court jurisdiction heard the the case as well as the year it began. The name of the judge who made the decision also does not appear.

What was made public on Monday is some context, including how the person involved ultimately did not become an informant for a police force that has yet to be identified. The person was approached the police and he had very serious concerns that his identity would be revealed. As investigators looked into what the man said they became convinced the information he provided was false.

It also reveals the case was heard in an unusual manner, to protect the man’s identity, but no actual trial was held. The man sought a stay of proceedings on an undisclosed charge he was convicted of and the judge made a decision on his motion.

The decision released Monday reveals the would-be informant first met with two police officers, on a date that is redacted from the decision.

“Police officer A gave him his business card and invited him to communicate if he wanted to supply information. No promise of confidentiality was given to (the person),” the judge who made the original decision wrote.

Article content

Article content

On a later date, the man met with the same police officers and they laid out what they were interested in and what becoming an informant involved. The man repeated again that he didn’t want his collaboration to ever become public.

The investigator identified as “police officer A” explained how the man could supply information without having to later testify in court.

“(Police officer A) explained that he would not benefit from immunity, without necessarily using the term immunity,” the judge wrote. “The (man) wanted to reflect on this proposition.”

At a later date, the man began to share information with investigators about other crimes, but not about the case the investigators were interested in. He began to talk about that case at a later date. He discussed the roles that other people allegedly played in the crime and the investigators did not ask him questions about his role.

The investigators then began to talk to another person (or persons) to validate what the man alleged. The details of what followed are heavily redacted from the decision released on Monday. But whatever the investigators learned it caused them “to put an end to their relationship” with the man.

Article content

“Because the man lied regarding his involvement, the bond of trust had been broken. What’s more, while relying on his words, the investigators were sent on paths that placed them in an annoying situation,” the judge wrote.

The investigators explained to the man that he was the only person who could be charged based on the information they gathered. He contacted them again later that same day and offered to testify against the people he made allegations against, but police officer A informed him that this was impossible.

In the end, the man was the only person charged in what is only identified as “Case X.” The entire nature of the crime he is alleged to have committed is redacted from the decision.

Article content

pcherry@postmedia.com

Article content

Article content