8 Year Old Victoria “Tori” Stafford Missing Since 4/8/09 in Ontario, Canada

[Nut44x4]

Publication ban placed on Stafford murder case

Date: Fri. Apr. 30 2010 6:13 PM ET

Terry-Lynne McClintic, charged in the death of young Victoria Stafford, was scheduled to make a court appearance in Woodstock, Ont. on Friday.

However, a sweeping publication ban means no further information can be released without further order from the court.

"I am unprepared to discuss her (state) of mind for fear of breaching the publication ban in any way," said Jeanine LeRoy, McClintic's defence lawyer.

McClintic, 19, and Michael Rafferty, 29, were arrested in May 2009. Both were charged with first-degree murder and kidnapping.

A preliminary hearing date of June 21 has been set for Rafferty's case. Such hearings are held to determine if there is enough evidence to determine if a trial should be held. It is expected to last about four weeks.

Tori, 8, failed to return home from school on April 8, 2009. This touched off a massive search effort that captured the attention of Canadians.

Video from a security camera showed Tori, wearing her Hannah Montana jacket, being led away from her school by a woman.

Police found Tori's remains more than three months later in a field north of Guelph, which is more than 100 kilometres from her home town.

The case led to revisions to Ontario's Amber Alert guidelines. Now police only have to believe, not confirm, a child has been abducted or in serious danger to release an alert. They can also release an alert without descriptive information about the vehicle or abductor.

Rodney Stafford

Rodney Stafford, Tori's father, found out recently from police what they believe happened to his little girl in her last moments.

"Distraught. Angry. I didn't know how to react," he told CTV News on Friday while sitting on a bench in Woodstock's Victoria Park. "I had so much anger inside of me. I didn't want to be where we were. I just wanted to pace around."

He described the past year as a living, emotional hell. "You have your high points.  You have your low points," Stafford said, saying it's been the same for everyone in his family.

His son Darren, Tori's older brother, normally walked his little sister home from school. But he wasn't available that day.

Stafford said the boy still feels guilty to this day. "For the most part, he's pretty jolly, but he's got a lot of inside stuff," he said.

When he thinks about Tori at night, "I usually take a couple glances up at the stars and say, 'hi.' And that's basically it. I feel Tori with me every day. I get a sign a day. It might not be a sign, but I take it as one,” Stafford said.

To explain signs to his son, Rodney said he showed Darren a "brand-new, purple-leaf air freshener" at the base of a gas pump as they stopped to fill up on the way to a hockey game.

Purple was Tori's favourite colour. Rodney released a purple balloon at the end of a bicycle journey to Alberta last summer to commemorate his daughter.

"Of all the gas stations in Woodstock, why did we stop at the one with a purple leaf?" he said. "To me, that was a sign Tori was coming with us to the hockey game."

Rodney and his son are planning another ride this summer from Edmonton to Woodstock. They are calling it Kilometres for Kids 2: A Sibling's Journey.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100430/Stafford_murder_100430/20100430?hub=Canada

[Northern Rose]

WOODSTOCK - A temporary publication ban prohibits the media, including QMI Agency, from publishing any details after a woman accused of kidnapping and murdering an eight-year-old girl was scheduled to appear in court Friday.

Terri-Lynne McClintic, 19, was to appear in the Superior Court of Justice.

She was charged last year with first-degree murder and kidnapping in the April 8, 2009 disappearance of Victoria ŒTori’ Stafford.

On Friday, Justice Dougald McDermid issued a hand-written ruling saying what the media could report:

“As we previously reported, Terri-Lynne McClintic was scheduled to appear on April 30, 2010 in the Superior Court of Justice at Woodstock but because of a temporary publication ban, we are prohibited by court order from providing any further information until further order of the court.” Outside the courtroom, lawyer Iain MacKinnon, representing several media outlets, expressed his frustration at the ban.

“The scope is somewhat unusual. The scope of it is somewhat broad,” he told more than a dozen reporters.

“It’s frustrating, very frustrating. And it’s discouraging, but I hope at the end of the day our arguments will win out.” The judge, he added, is “being very careful and cautious.” Outside the courthouse, several members of Tori’s family ¬ her mother, father, mother’s fiance, grandparents, aunts and uncles - declined comment.

The lawyer for McClintic, Jeanine LeRoy, also declined to comment when asked about the case and the emotional state of her client.

The temporary ban covers all broadcasts, print media and the Internet, MacKinnon said.

“Everybody is subject to the same court orders, whether they are media or Joe Blows.” MacKinnon said he couldn’t say when the temporary ban might end and other information allowed to be published.

“I can’t say when that is. At some point we will be able to report. It is just a matter of when, not if.” Also charged last year with first-degree murder and kidnapping was Michael Rafferty.

His preliminary hearing is set to begin June 21.

Tori disappeared while walking home from school.

Her body was found in a wooded area near Mount Forest July 19.


http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/04/30/13781646.html

[Northern Rose]

Accused in Stafford death was to appear in court, ban prevents further reporting

WOODSTOCK, Ont. - A woman charged in the death of eight-year-old Victoria Stafford was scheduled to appear in court Friday but a temporary publication ban prevents any further information from being released.

Victoria, known as Tori, went missing on April 8, 2009 outside her Woodstock, Ont., school.

Terri-Lynne McClintic, 19, and Michael Rafferty, 29, were arrested in May 2009 and charged with first-degree murder and kidnapping.

McClintic was scheduled to appear in court Friday in Woodstock but the temporary publication ban prohibits the media from providing any further information until further order of the court.

Last week the court set June 21 as the date for Rafferty's preliminary hearing to begin.

The hearing, which allows a judge to weigh the evidence and decide if the case can move forward to trial, is expected to last about four weeks.

When Tori, clad in her Hannah Montana jacket, failed to return home from school it set off a desperate search that touched hearts countrywide.

Her remains were not found until more than three months later, some 100 kilometres away in a field north of Guelph.

The abduction unleashed a torrent of criticism against Oxford Community Police for not issuing an alert after the Grade 3 student disappeared.

That spurred a review of Ontario's Amber Alert guidelines, giving police greater leeway for sounding the alarm in the critical first few hours of a child's disappearance.

Previously, police had to confirm a child had been abducted, believe the child to be in danger of serious harm or death, and have descriptive information about the child and a suspect or vehicle.

Now, police only have to believe, and not confirm, that a child has been abducted and fear that they are in any type of danger. Authorities can also issue an alert without descriptive information about an abductor or vehicle.

Tori's father, Rodney Stafford, and her 12-year-old brother Daryn are preparing for a fundraising bike ride starting in June that will take them from Edmonton to Woodstock. Last year Stafford rode from Woodstock to Edmonton to raise money for Child Find Ontario in his daughter's memory.

Stafford and his son are calling this journey Kilometres for Kids 2: A Sibling's Story.

http://www.canadaeast.com/front/article/1034661

[Northern Rose]

This ban goes too far



A court appearance was scheduled for Woodstock, Ont., on Friday, but we can’t tell you anything about it.

That’s because an Ontario court judge has issued a temporary, but broad, publication ban in the high-profile case involving the 2009 killing of eight-year-old Victoria (Tori) Stafford.

Because of the ban, all we can say is that Terri-Lynne McClintic was scheduled to appear Friday in the Superior Court of Justice in Woodstock. We are prohibited from providing any more information until there is a further order of the court.

Ms. McClintic, along with Michael Rafferty, was charged last year with the kidnapping and first-degree murder of Tori, in a shocking case that galvanized the country.

Media organizations sought to oppose the ban, but they were unable to do so in any substantive way.

Publication bans are often applied in court cases – they are routinely applied to pre-trial and bail hearings to preserve the right to a fair trial, and they are often used to shield witnesses in cases involving sex crimes. They are also used frequently to protect young offenders. These limited bans are completely justified.

But a more sweeping ban, such as the one issued by Mr. Justice Dougald McDermid in Woodstock without first hearing those who oppose it, is a danger to the rights of Canadians.

In a ruling on a key case in 1994, then chief justice Antonio Lamar of the Supreme Court of Canada wrote that “freedom of expression, including freedom of the press, is now recognized as a paramount value in Canadian society.” His guidelines made it clear that no ban should be ordered unless all reasonable alternatives are first explored.

The right to free expression is equal to the right to a fair trial, in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Judge Lamer wrote. That balance cannot be ignored.

At the same time, the practical reality is that in the Internet age, trying to stop the dissemination of information revealed in open court is impractical. Indeed, placing limits on traditional, responsible media may be counterproductive, as the only information available to the public will be incomplete and rife with speculation and rumour.

The extent of this ban is absurd and should be reconsidered.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/this-ban-goes-too-far/article1553384/

[Northern Rose]

Media ban in Stafford case

A temporary publication ban prohibits the media from publishing any details after a woman accused of kidnapping and murdering an eight-year-old girl was scheduled to appear in court Friday.

Terri-Lynne McClintic, 19, was to appear in the Superior Court of Justice.

She was charged last year with first-degree murder and kidnapping in the April 8, 2009, disappearance of Victoria (Tori) Stafford.


On Friday, Judge Dougald McDermid issued a hand-written ruling saying what the media could report:

"As we previously reported, Terri-Lynne McClintic was scheduled to appear on April 30, in the Superior Court of Justice at Woodstock but because of a temporary publication ban, we are prohibited by court order from providing any further information until further order of the court." Outside the courtroom, lawyer Iain MacKinnon, representing several media outlets, expressed his frustration at the ban.

"The scope is somewhat unusual. The scope of it is somewhat broad," he told more than a dozen reporters.

"It's frustrating, very frustrating. And it's discouraging, but I hope at the end of the day our arguments will win out."

The judge, he added, is "being very careful and cautious."

Outside the courthouse, several members of Tori's family -- her mother, father, mother's fiance, grandparents, aunts and uncles -- declined comment.

The lawyer for McClintic, Jeanine LeRoy, also declined to comment when asked about the case and the emotional state of her client.

The temporary ban covers all broadcasts, print media and the Internet, MacKinnon said.

Everybody is subject to the same court orders, whether they are media or Joe Blows."

MacKinnon said he couldn't say when the temporary ban might end and other information allowed to be published.

"I can't say when that is. At some point we will be able to report. It is just a matter of when, not if."

Also charged last year with first-degree murder and kidnapping was Michael Rafferty.

His preliminary hearing is set to begin June 21.

Tori disappeared while walking home from school.

Her body was found in a wooded area near Mount Forest July 19.

http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2560150

[Northern Rose]

Outrage over publication ban in child slaying


A sweeping court-ordered publication ban that prevents anyone from reporting on a high-profile court case into the slaying of an eight-year-old Ontario girl has raised some hackles across the country.

With front-page editorials lambasting the temporary ban as one that goes too far, experts in media law agree the extent of the ban on the Victoria Stafford case is unusual and one that will simply fuel rampant speculation.

"It's unusual in its scope and how broad it is and how much it covers," said Iain MacKinnon, a lawyer acting on behalf of several media organizations covering the case.

"Gagged" yells a bold headline on the front page of Saturday's Toronto Star. "This ban goes too far," argues an editorial in the Globe and Mail.

Stafford disappeared in April last year, after leaving her school in Woodstock, Ont. Her remains were found three months later, about 100 kilometres away in a field north of Guelph.

One of the suspects charged in her death was scheduled to appear in court Friday facing a first-degree murder charge.

A blanket publication ban issued by Judge Dougald McDermid prevents all media from saying anything else.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/05/01/pub-ban-stafford-case-reaction.html

[Northern Rose]

NDP justice critic slams publication ban on Tori Stafford casePeter Kormos says ban creates ‘a bizarre Catch-22’

A sweeping publication ban that prevents the Star from reporting what transpired at the court date of one of the accused in the Tori Stafford murder is unprecedented and must be resolved promptly, says the NDP justice critic.

“We identify secret trials with totalitarian states,” Peter Kormos said.

Tori Stafford went missing a year ago, outside of her school in Woodstock, Ont. In May 2009, Terri-Lynne McClintic, then 19, and Michael Rafferty, then 29, were charged with her murder and abduction.

On Friday, McClintic was scheduled to appear in Woodstock court. What happened in that courtroom is now the subject of gossip and rumour, but no facts, thanks to a broad publication ban.

A court order handed down by Justice Dougald R. McDermid permits the publication of only this statement: “As we previously reported, Terri-Lynne McClintic was scheduled to appear on April 30, 2010 in the Superior Court of Justice at Woodstock but because of a temporary publication ban, we are prohibited by court order from providing any further information until further order of the court.”

The scope of the ban was such that media were not allowed to report if McClintic appeared in court.

Having a blackout on information heard by people at the Woodstock courthouse is an “affront to the public’s interest in ensuring justice is done,” Kormos said.

The Stafford case has been on the public’s radar since Tori went missing, and much information about the case is already in the public domain.

Kormos said publication bans have a place in ensuring a fair trial, but every ban should have a cogent explanation and as narrow scope as possible.

“The ban appears to have precluded publication of the explanation, and we get into a very bizarre Catch-22,” he said. “All this does is generate suspicion and cynicism in the general public.”

In Saturday’s Star, a front-page editorial denounced the gag order, arguing it favoured speculation at the expense of fact.

On Saturday, the premier’s office was tight lipped on the matter.

“Because the issue is before the courts, the only comment I can offer you on behalf of the premier's office is that our thoughts are with the family and friends of Tori Stafford.” Said Jane Almeida, press secretary for premier Dalton McGuinty.

Kormos said misinformation, which is surely “more dangerous than facts” will be the order of the day until the ban is lifted.

“The matter has to be resolved promptly. Every day that a complete blackout prevails is another day of conjecture, speculation, and downright inaccurate information,” he said.

Publication bans are normally issued to protect the fair trial of an accused or group of accused, but as one media law expert says, the far reach of the ban will get some indignant tongues wagging.

“In effect, it is a gag order,” says Klaus Pohle, who teaches media law at Carleton University.

“Since we have no idea whatsoever what this publication ban is all about and what it seeks to protect, it may lead to all kinds of speculation.”

Pohle points out that a similar ban was issued in the Karla Homolka case, which lasted for years. Homolka served a 12-year prison sentence for manslaughter after entering into a plea bargain with Ontario Crown officials in 1993 in exchange for testimony against ex-husband Paul Bernardo.

Typically, Pohle says publication bans generally allow the media to say whether the accused appeared in court, and what the appearance was for, with a ban on the proceedings themselves.

But the shroud of secrecy that has blanketed the Stafford proceedings could lead some to suspect plea bargaining is underway, he said.

“Unless you know what the reasons are you can't make a judgment, and therefore it sounds as if something nefarious is going on,” he said.

In addition, because the ban goes beyond traditional media and extends to anyone using print, broadcast and Internet channels to share information Pohle says speculation is bound to occur.

“There's going to be conspiracy theories, and speculation all over the blogosphere, because that's the nature of it,” he said.

The one sliver of redemption stemming from the volley of criticism spurred by the ban, is that it is temporary, media lawyer Iain MacKinnon pointed out.

“Publication bans are never forever,” he said. "They always expire, it's just a matter of when."

http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/803405--ndp-justice-critic-slams-publication-ban-on-tori-stafford-case?bn=1

[Northern Rose]

DiManno: Media ban cheats Canadians

Teenage girls, on a school field trip to the courthouse, are clearly curious about the large media presence shouldering TV cameras and thrusting forward microphones outside the old building's side entrance.

A few sidle up to the scrum that forms around a lawyer. They hear the bit that can be reported about a sweeping publication ban arising from a court proceeding involving one of the two defendants charged with murdering Victoria — Tori — Stafford last spring. With cameras and tape recorders later turned off, the girls can also overhear the informal discussion as journalists pepper the media lawyer for advice on whether they can report on this and this and this. Plenty of those queries relate to verboten content, matters that can't be published or broadcast.

But now those teenage girls know about it, or know quite enough, just because of the coincidental timing of their visit.

They number about a dozen. One could safely surmise the girls will return to school or go home and pass on what they've learned. Let's just assume each tells five friends. So now that's about 70 people who know. And they'll tell their friends. And so on and so on and so on.

At the courthouse, Tori's parents are emotionally buttressed by at least another two dozen family and friends. The mother of one of the accused charged in Tori's murder, 19-year-old Terri-Lynne McClintic, also has a network, though I am not permitted to disclose whether the defendant herself was in court and certainly, if she was, anything she might have said.

There were police officers as well, and courtroom staff and countless others who simply work in the building — even some who don't, such as the individuals who provided catered lunch for the cops — nearly all of whom now know what the broader public is not entitled to know, at least not yet.

In the absence of reported facts, the public gets rumour and gossip as whispered dispatches from the courthouse filter out beyond the bell jar of imposed silence.

How long, you figure, before what can't be reported is common knowledge in a town of 35,500 people?

One ironic consequence is that media can still report what was previously known about Tori's abduction on April 8, 2009, the arrest weeks later of McClintic and Michael Rafferty, and the discovery of the child's remains in mid-July. This is information gleaned from investigators, neighbours, family members and Facebook postings — the usual reporting legwork.

But if, say, a reporter were to have recently learned, via a court procedure — and I'm being theoretical here, you understand — that some of this widely published/broadcast content is actually not true, maybe far off the mark, there is no way at this juncture to correct the record.

If — and I'm just musing — a police investigator provided inaccurate details to a journalist a year ago, either by accident or deliberately (it happens), that's now part of the media files record, regurgitated for background stories on the life and death of Tori Stafford, that means some in the media might be putting out information that they suspect is incorrect. To fix it, to adjust the narrative, requires dipping into details covered by a publication ban, and that's breaking the law.

This community has a right to know how Tori was abducted and how other children might be protected from predators. Imagine for a moment that information might have come out at a court proceeding on Friday that could help parents safeguard their children from abductors — and this knowledge is being withheld.

On a rainy Saturday afternoon in Woodstock, there were a lot of people poring over complimentary newspapers at the Williams Coffee Pub, trying to make sense of what the local and national media had turned itself inside out to tell/not tell about a court procedure the previous day that is covered by a wide, rigid publication ban.

Speculation here is rife. Much of it might be wrong. On social networking sites, there are outright assertions of a “deal'' cut with McClintic by the Crown and a first-degree murder charge pleaded downwards. Most of these commentators don't have a clue what they're talking about. But such conjectures are bound to arise when a publication ban is imposed.

On Facebook, which has almost 200 groups related to the Stafford case, writers are abuzz over an alleged accommodation with McClintic akin to the “deal with the devil'' that garnered Karla Homolka a 12-year manslaughter sentence in exchange for testifying against her ex-husband Paul Bernardo.

On one discussion board, someone fulminates: “Are they crazy??? Plea bargain??? No way!!! Didn't they learn any lessons from Homolka?”

Who says there's been a plea bargain? This type of wild speculation is the inevitable result of a publication ban in such a case.

Why all this secrecy?

Because Justice Dougald McDermid must think the average Canadian is a moron. That is my respectful submission.

Thirty-four years on the bench and McDermid orders a publication ban — which may or may not later be amended, partly lifted — for the same reason any other judge in Canada, in any case, would utilize this mechanism: to protect the fair trial rights of an accused, a central component of our justice system.

Bans are routine in preliminary hearings, with their lower threshold of evidentiary proof that a case should proceed to trial. More narrow bans are common at trial when there is more than one accused and the defendants are prosecuted separately.

The jury is not to know about a previous outcome and the media stops reporting it while the trial is unfolding.

Highly unusual is what happened when Justice Frank Kovacs imposed (later partly lifted) a smothering ban before the hearing wherein Homolka pleaded guilty to two charges of manslaughter. The media, while allowed to report on any sentence or conditions imposed on Homolka, could not reveal that she'd entered a guilty plea because, Kovacs reasoned, this would jeopardize Paul Bernardo's trial later on, even though Bernardo's lawyers objected to the ban.

Kovacs even took the stunning step of excluding the public from Homolka's hearing, lest anybody leak information to U.S. media organizations, which could not be compelled to obey the ban.

Here's the crux of the thing: Courts in Canada generally assume, in most patronizing fashion, that a jury pool would be tainted by having foreknowledge of events, especially how a case against a co-accused has turned out. The “deleterious'' effect of that knowledge trumps the public's right to know what has transpired in our allegedly open courtrooms. Yet prospective jurors have often been exposed to media coverage of a crime when it was committed or when arrests were made. Courts pretend the passage of time, between arrest and trial, blunts that knowledge.

Courts have evolved at least that far — conceding that knowledge, at minimum, isn't crippling and pre-emptively excluding for a jurist.

But judges and the defence bar cling to the paternalistic belief that a jury of ordinary people, Canadians like you or I, couldn't render a fair verdict — indeed, that no fair trial could take place — if they are in possession of facts as to how earlier proceedings against a co-accused were resolved.

Hence publication bans — because you can't handle the truth.

http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/803456--dimanno-media-ban-cheats-canadians

[Northern Rose]

Publication ban undermines fundamental rights

We had expected some sort of publication ban when the two Woodstonians accused of the horrific murder of Victoria "Tori" Stafford were finally brought before a judge.

Given the separate trials -and the tremendous amount of media attention since the eight-year-old girl's April 8, 2009, disappearance -some sort of ban was almost inevitable. The surprise, however, was the scope of the ban.

We cannot report anything now except the following statement authored by Justice Dougald McDermid: "As we previously reported, Terri-Lynne McClintic was scheduled to appear on April 30, 2010, in the Superior Court of Justice at Woodstock but, because of a temporary publication ban, we are prohibited by court order from providing any further information until further order of the court."

That is it. Until the court issues another order, we can only tell you that McClintic, who, along with co-accused Michael Rafferty, was charged with Victoria Stafford's abduction and murder in May 2009, was scheduled to appear in court on Friday.

QMI and other media outlets in this country have been muzzled.

"The scope is somewhat unusual. The scope of it is somewhat broad," media lawyer Iain MacKinnon told reporters outside of the courthouse. The scope is also very troubling.

In fact, until a late submission by MacKinnon on Friday, members of the media were actually prohibited from even reporting there was a publication ban.

One of the tenets of our common law approach is a presumption in favour of open courtrooms, providing the public with the information needed to observe and, if necessary, be informed critics of our judicial system. This concept is grounded in our democracy, where we, the citizens, collectively govern ourselves. To preserve this ideal, we need to be able to scrutinize and, if necessary, call to account our judicial branch of government. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms identifies freedom of expression, including the freedom of the press, as one of our fundamental rights. This right was enshrined to ensure a "full and fair discussion of public institutions, which is vital to any democracy."

This publication ban rejects the presumption of openness, preventing the news media, in its role as watchdog, from providing the public with that information. McDermid's ban removes that oversight, which is essential to our democracy. By undermining this ideal, the ban shows a contempt for the public's interest that is disconcerting. In 1994, the Supreme Court of Canada made a landmark ruling that freedom of expression can be equal to, or supersede, the right to a fair trial. This ruling reinforced the importance of the open courtroom while upholding the fundamental role of freedom of expression in our governance.

In essence, the ruling creates a balance between two fundamental but -often -competing rights.

As a result of the Dagenais case, the Supreme Court issued a "modified" rule that publication bans can only be imposed when:

* Such a ban is necessary in order to prevent a real and substantial risk to the fairness of the trial, because reasonably available alternative measures will not prevent the risk; and

* The salutary effects of the public ban outweigh the deleterious effects of the free expression of those affected by the ban.

In other cases, a balance has been achieved by allowing the news media to provide a bare-bones account that avoids any information deemed overly prejudicial. In a recent Woodstock case, the judge provided a version of the "agreed facts" that eliminated any injurious references to another accused.

A compromise is possible. But the judge in this case has not yet applied this rule.

http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2560778

[Northern Rose]

Ontario Premier defends controversial publication ban
McGuinty says details of Victoria Stafford’s death will eventually come out

Ontario politicians echoed media concerns Monday about a sweeping publication ban in the Tori Stafford case, but Premier Dalton McGuinty said he was confident the facts in the first-degree murder proceedings would eventually come out.

The Progressive Conservatives and New Democrats both warned the ban imposed Friday by Justice Dougald McDermid would only fuel rumours and false information, especially in today's wired world.

“Everyone has a blog and Facebook and Twitter,” said Opposition justice critic Ted Chudleigh.

“My big concern is that justice won't be served by this since the rumours will certainly fill the void, and that's a bad thing for justice.”

The New Democrats said the publication ban went so far beyond the norm it should be called a blackout.

“With our blogosphere culture, there's going to be all sorts of stuff said about what's happening (and) most of it will be inaccurate or downright malicious falsehoods,” said NDP justice critic Peter Kormos.

“Surely the truth is preferable to any falsehoods, misinformation, speculation or innuendo.”

Speaking at an unrelated event in Walkerton, Ont., Mr. McGuinty said he had confidence in the criminal justice system and advised people to be patient while the cases against Stafford's accused killers work their way through the courts.

“I think these are early days in terms of the proceedings themselves,” said Mr. McGuinty.

“I think there will be opportunities for us to acquire more information generally, the public — through the media — as things unfold.”

Tori Stafford, a Grade 3 student, disappeared after leaving school in April last year, sparking a desperate search that touched hearts across the country. Her remains were found three months later in a field north of Guelph, about 100 kilometres away.

Terri-Lynne McClintic, 19, and Michael Rafferty, 29, were arrested in May 2009 and charged with first-degree murder and kidnapping.

Ms. McClintic was scheduled to appear in a Woodstock court Friday, but a temporary publication ban prevents the media from providing any further information until further order of the court.

Last month the court set June 21 as the date for Mr. Rafferty's preliminary hearing to begin.

The hearing, which allows a judge to weigh the evidence and decide if the case can move forward to trial, is expected to last about four weeks.

Ontario Attorney General Chris Bentley said he won’t “get in the way” of the controversial temporary publication ban.

“I won’t comment on the case and I won’t make commentary about the surrounding circumstances because that’s a matter for the judge,” Mr. Bentley told reporters on Monday. “Judges are independent in our society. They make independent decisions. The judge will be the one who comments on it. I won’t.”

The fact that judges are independent of politicians is one of the strengths of Canada’s judicial system, Mr. Bentley said, adding that the courts only rarely resort to using publication bans.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ontario/ontario-premier-defends-controversial-publication-ban/article1554932/

[Northern Rose]

Reporting restrictions in Tori Stafford case stir debate

A committee of judges, lawyers and newspaper editors will meet in England for the first time Tuesday to discuss the troubling use of court orders to muzzle the media.

The committee was set up by Britain’s second-most powerful judge after courts there began fashioning a new tool — dubbed the “super injunction” — to restrict press freedom.

In Canada, publication bans are the subject of renewed controversy after Ontario Superior Court Justice Dougald McDermid issued sweeping restrictions Friday on what transpired in connection with a scheduled court appearance for Terri-Lynne McClintic, one of two people charged with abducting and murdering 8-year-old Tori Stafford.

As a result of the ban, the Star and other media outlets can’t even report on whether McClintic appeared in court.

The judge scripted what the media could say:

“As we previously reported, Terri-Lynne McClintic was scheduled to appear on April 30, 2010, in the Superior Court of Justice at Woodstock but because of a temporary publication ban, we are prohibited by court order from providing any further information until further order of the court.”

In England, controversy peaked last fall when the Guardian newspaper was prevented by court order from writing about a report into allegations that a multinational trading company named Trafigura had been dumping toxic waste off the Ivory Coast in West Africa.

The newspaper was also prohibited from reporting the court had imposed the restriction, a move that elevated the ban to a “super injunction.”

What Trafigura apparently hadn’t realized was there were two other avenues, far from the reach of the courts, for talking openly about the report and the ban: Parliament and the online universe.

When Trafigura’s lawyers discovered a Labour MP planned to ask a question about the gag order in Parliament, they went a step further, attempting to stop the newspaper from reporting on the MP’s question and justice secretary Jack Straw’s response.

Critics were quick to remind the public that reformers waged valiant battles to report on the workings of Parliament, with 18th-century journalist and politician John Wilkes fighting right up to the king for the right to publish accounts of Commons debates.

Opponents of the company’s attempts to stifle the media also noted the revered Lord Denning — often described as the 20th century’s most celebrated English judge — had ruled that comments made in Parliament can be reported by newspapers without fear of being found in contempt of court.

When super injunctions have been issued against mainstream media outlets in England, bloggers have often moved to fill the void.

In the Guardian case, for example, bloggers were feverishly speculating about the injunction, much like online social networkers have been conjuring their own accounts of what the publication ban imposed by Justice McDermid is shielding.

This problem was recognized by Justice Mary Lou Benotto last year, when she dismissed an application brought by lawyers for Nicola Puddicombe, charged in a so-called “lesbian axe murder” in Toronto, for a publication ban on the trial of her co-accused, Ashleigh Pechaluk, in Ontario’s Superior Court.

Pechaluk was to be tried first and Puddicombe’s lawyers were concerned that daily court reports would influence potential jurors in their client’s case and infringe her right to a fair trial.

But Benotto, like many Canadian judges , suggested the quest for hermetically-sealed jurors is proving futile in the digital age.

“As soon as a decision about a publication ban is rendered, another technological advance is made adding another level of difficulty,“ she wrote, noting a ban would not prevent members of the public from entering the courtroom, listening to the trial and posting reports on Twitter or blogs, which are “beyond the practical reach of the courts.”

“A ban would effectively eliminate responsible reporting while doing nothing about these other internet postings,” Benotto said.

While she disagreed there was any real or substantial risk that a jury pool could be tainted by news reports of Puddicombe’s trial, Benotto also said there were alternative measures available to address any such concern, including questioning prospective jurors, who might have read the stories, on whether they could still judge the case impartially.

In the end, she said, it is only through open court proceedings that the public can see, assess, understand and even complain about the justice system.

“It is only through openness that the public can have trust in our justice system.“

Super publication bans: A brief history

The effectiveness of publication bans in an era of ever-changing mass communications was questioned as far back as 1993, after a ban imposed on the facts surrounding Karla Homolka’s manslaughter plea spawned what the Washington Post called a “cottage industry” of speculation about her role in multiple murders.

British newspapers that were destined for Toronto and carried stories that included banned material were shredded. Canadian cable networks blocked U.S. TV programs that revealed information Canadian news outlets couldn’t publish.

With the advent of the internet, the issue is global.

Today, Australia’s Sydney Morning Herald recently suggested, the U.S. government couldn’t succeed in blocking reports about the Pentagon Papers, the secret defence department documents that showed Americans had been misled about the reasons for military involvement in Vietnam.

Injunctions that prevented the Post and New York Times from writing about the documents would be defied by bloggers.

Since the mid-1990s, the law has also shifted in Canada, placing the media’s right to report on court proceedings on equal footing with an accused person’s right to a fair trial. Before imposing a publication ban, a court must find, among other things, that reporting on a court proceeding would create “a real and substantial risk” to the fairness of a trial. It must also consider alternatives to a publication ban.

In many instances, judges have refused to restrict reporting:

Justice Ian Nordheimer dismissed an application from the Crown and eight people accused in the 2005 Boxing Day shooting death of Jane Creba to ban reporting on the trial of Jorell Simpson-Rowe, the first person tried and convicted. Lawyers argued that prospective jurors in the seven later cases would be tainted by news reports on Simpson-Rowe’s trial.

Nordheimer said a publication ban would prevent the public from learning for a year or more, until all the other cases had finished, what happened in Simpson-Rowe’s case, which was simply unacceptable. “The fact remains that the public has a right to know.” he said in a 2008 decision. “The public has the right to determine whether all of the players in the criminal justice system are performing their respective roles in a fit and proper manner.”

A British Columbia judge rejected a request from Shannon Murrin, charged with first-degree murder in the 1994 death of 8-year-old Mindy Tran, to impose a publication ban on the trial of three men accused of beating Murrin in an alleged attempt to extract a confession.

Justice Wally Oppal, as he then was, said the justice system isn’t so fragile that an accused person’s trial would be irreparably damaged if jurors were exposed to news reports about the trials of others charged in connection with the case. Murrin was acquitted in 2000.

In other cases, judges have imposed limited bans. At the trial of a youth charged in connection with the so-called Toronto 18 terrorist case, a Superior Court judge banned reporting of the names of his adult co-accused, even though their names had been previously published

http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/803535

[Northern Rose]

Media lawyer warns against judging publication ban in Stafford case

A media lawyer is urging everyone to hold off on judging the judge for imposing a publication ban in the Tori Stafford case.

Suspect Terri-Lynne McClintic, was scheduled to appear in court last Friday on a first-degree murder charge in the death of the eight-year-old girl from Woodstock. But a judge has imposed a ban that prohibits anyone from reporting virtually anything else.

Media lawyer, Ian MacKinnon tells 570 News it's important to remember this is just a temporary ban.  He explains Judge Dougald McDermid is taking a "careful and cautious route" for now.

MacKinnon says in case the judge decides later on a total media ban is needed, it would undermine that decision if media outlets have already run stories.

Nonetheless, MacKinnon says he and other parties will get the chance to submit written materials, case law, and more to the judge to have the publication ban lifted.

MacKinnon doesn't know when that hearing might be. MacKinnon says the judge could decide to continue the ban, lift it, or go the most common way and rule certain material could be published.

MacKinnon adds publication bans are quite common, but rarely this broad.

He says these bans protect things like an accused person's right to a fair trial. 

http://www.570news.com/news/local/article/50897--media-lawyer-warns-against-judging-publication-ban-in-stafford-case

[Northern Rose]

Publication ban justified in Tori case

"I am staying calm because they know their jobs." -- Rodney Stafford on Ontario's justice system.

The judge has spoken.

So has the premier, the opposition, the curious, the furious, the gossips, the media and even the bloggers.

Many have had their say on the publication ban laid down in court Friday when Terri-Lynne McClintic was scheduled to appear in court.

And now it's the true victim's turn ‹ as in slain Tori Stafford's dad, Rodney.

"I have confidence in the system and I am being patient," the 35-year-old said in an interview Monday.

It's an important point of view since it is he, and all of Tori Stafford's immediate family, who have to live with the pain and horror of what happened to their kidnapped and murdered eight-year-old.

"My life is exactly like a roller-coaster -- ups and downs," said Rodney, who with son, Daryn, 12, will jump on their bikes and do a second Ride for Tori.

They will start the 55-day ride June 20 in Jasper, Alta., and travel east with all proceeds going to Child Find. "The important thing is to fight for the safety of all children." McClintic, 19, is one of two people charged with first-degree murder and kidnapping of eight-year-old Victoria Stafford, who disappeared April 8,

2009 and was discovered in a field outside Mount Forest last July 19. The preliminary hearing for Michael Rafferty ‹ charged with first-degree murder in the little girl's death -- starts June 21.

But the ban surrounding McClintic's scheduled appearance has unleashed furious criticism.

As written by QMI's Randy Richmond, all the media was able to release was Justice Dougald McDermid's following statement: "As we reported Terri-Lynne McClintic was scheduled to appear on April 30, 2010 in the Superior Court of Justice at Woodstock but because of a temporary publication ban, we are prohibited by court order from providing any further information until further order of the court." In a free society, it sparked outrage. But Premier Dalton McGuinty reasoned Monday "these are early days in terms of the proceedings" and that "as things unfold" there will be "opportunities for us to acquire more information." But Tory justice critic Ted Chudleigh told veteran Canadian Press reporter Keith Leslie justice "won¹t be served by this since the rumours will certainly fill the void." NDP justice critic Peter Kormos added "surely the truth is preferable to any falsehoods, misinformation, speculation or innuendo." Fair concerns Popular AM920 CKNX-AM Radio talkshow host Bryan Allen tells me in his region, people wonder "what the hell is going on" and that there is "a lot of skepticism." All fair concerns.

But not everything happens in black and white. It's the overall interest of justice that needs to be weighed and, while I reserve the right to scrutinize the fine print of court proceedings once the ban is lifted, I understand what Justice McDermid was faced with and why he went down this road.

Those reading between the lines and coming to conclusions based on understandable emotion, should also read into the fact Stafford's father is not sharing their outrage.

"Right now I have to trust them," he said, adding he has "faith" in the Crown and the judge.

Sometimes you have to trust the process.

Due to the ban we can't report on the proceedings in the courtroom. But what I can tell you is I don't believe it is the beginning of the end of freedom of the press or that anybody is trying to close down the public's right to know. What it does seem to be is some out-of-the-box decision making in response to tricky, unique and complex circumstances.

Sometimes the benefit of doubt has to be given and I believe this is one of those times.

The words of Rodney Stafford, who lives with this brutal nightmare, should mean a lot in the court of public opinion.

"These people are professionals," he said of those in the justice system who okayed the ban. "They did this for a reason."

http://www.torontosun.com/news/columnists/joe_warmington/2010/05/03/13811801.html

[Northern Rose]

Politicians question media ban in Tori Stafford case

TORONTO — Ontario politicians echoed media concerns Monday about a sweeping publication ban in the Tori Stafford case, but Premier Dalton McGuinty said he was confident the facts in the first-­degree murder proceedings would eventually come out.

The Progressive Conservatives and New Democrats both warned the ban imposed Friday by Justice Dougald McDermid would fuel rumours and false information, especially in today’s wired world.

“Everyone has a blog and Facebook and Twitter,” said Opposition justice critic Ted Chudleigh. “My big concern is that justice won’t be served by this since the rumours will certainly fill the void, and that’s a bad thing for justice.”

The New Democrats said the publication ban went so far beyond the norm it should be called a blackout.

“With our blogosphere culture, there’s going to be all sorts of stuff said about what’s happening (and) most of it will be inaccurate or downright malicious falsehoods,” said NDP justice critic Peter Kormos. “Surely the truth is preferable to any falsehoods, misinformation, speculation or innuendo.”

Speaking at an unrelated event in Walkerton, McGuinty said he had confidence in the criminal justice system and advised patience while the cases against Stafford’s accused killers work their way through the courts.

“I think these are early days in terms of the proceedings themselves,” said McGuinty. “I think there will be opportunities for us to acquire more information generally, the public — through the media — as things unfold.”

Stafford, a Grade 3 student, disappeared after leaving school in April last year. Her remains were found three months later in a field north of Guelph, about 100 kilometres away.

Terri-Lynne McClintic, 19, and Michael Rafferty, 29, were arrested in May 2009 and charged with first-degree murder and kidnapping. McClintic was scheduled to appear in a Woodstock court Friday, but a temporary publication ban prevents the media from providing any further information until further order of the court.

Last month the court set June 21 as the date for Rafferty’s preliminary hearing to begin. The hearing, which allows a judge to weigh the evidence and decide if the case can go to trial, is expected to last about four weeks.

Attorney General Chris Bentley declined to comment Monday on the specifics of the publication ban, and said it would be up to the judge to eventually explain his decision.

“That’s one of the strengths of the system, that judges are independent of politicians or others and make the decisions according to our laws,” said Bentley. “I’ll leave it to the judge and the judicial process to speak to the issue.”

The publication ban raised the ire of media outlets across the country on the weekend, prompting front-page editorials saying the ban goes too far. Even the reason for the publication ban being imposed is off limits.

However, even critics point out the ban is only temporary and eventually the facts will be public.

http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2010/05/03/13813736.html

[Nut44x4]

The killer will never serve more than 25 years anyway.....so even the highest possible punishment is a slap on the wrist, imo.

[Nut44x4]

Last updated on Wednesday, May. 19, 2010 7:52PM EDT
 

A publication ban in the case of Terri-Lynne McClintic, one of the two people charged last year with the murder of eight-year old Victoria Stafford, has been extended.

Several media companies had argued in a Woodstock, Ont., courtroom Tuesday that the temporary ban – imposed on April 30 when Ms. McClintic was scheduled to appear in court – should be lifted.

Mr. Justice Dougald McDermid of Ontario Superior Court issued a ruling on the ban Wednesday, but when one of the lawyers in the case said he would attempt to appeal that decision to the Supreme Court of Canada, the ban was reinstated and the ruling sealed.

It could now be months before the media can report more details on the case, which shocked this southwestern Ontario town and the rest of the country.

The Supreme Court will likely maintain the ban until it decides whether to hear the case, said Iain McKinnon, the lawyer representing media outlets. He said the whole situation is “very frustrating” but “these things happen when an appeal is sought.”

Victoria, known as Tori, dissapeared on April 8, 2009, from her Woodstock neighbourhood and was seen on a surveillance video walking with a woman in a white coat. Her body was found several weeks later.

Ms. McClintic and her former boyfriend Michael Rafferty were charged with the murder. Mr Rafferty's preliminary hearing is set to begin in June.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/judge-extends-publication-ban-on-tori-stafford-case/article1574949/

[canadianmonkey]

Straight to trial for Michael Rafferty, suspect in Tori Stafford death
By: The Canadian Press

2/06/2010 3:26 PM | Comments: 0

Print E–mail Share ThisReport Error TORONTO - A 29-year-old man charged in the death of eight-year-old Victoria Stafford will go straight to trial without a preliminary hearing.

Michael Rafferty's preliminary hearing was scheduled to start June 21, but the Ministry of the Attorney General is now proceeding with a direct indictment.

When Tori failed to return home from school on April 8, 2009 in Woodstock, Ont., it set off a desperate search that touched hearts countrywide.

Terri-Lynne McClintic, 20, and Rafferty, 29, were arrested the following month and charged with first-degree murder and kidnapping.

Tori's remains were not found until more than three months after her disappearance, some 100 kilometres away in a field north of Guelph.

Court proceedings in McClintic's case are under a sweeping publication ban.

Preliminary hearings are held to see if there is enough evidence to go to trial.

It was not immediately clear when Rafferty's trial would begin.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/straight-to-trial-for-michael-rafferty-suspect-in-tori-stafford-death-95448799.html

[canadianmonkey]

Straight to trial for Michael Rafferty, suspect in Tori Stafford death
By: The Canadian Press

2/06/2010 3:26 PM | Comments: 0

Print E–mail Share ThisReport Error TORONTO - A 29-year-old man charged in the death of eight-year-old Victoria Stafford will go straight to trial without a preliminary hearing.

Michael Rafferty's preliminary hearing was scheduled to start June 21, but the Ministry of the Attorney General is now proceeding with a direct indictment.

When Tori failed to return home from school on April 8, 2009 in Woodstock, Ont., it set off a desperate search that touched hearts countrywide.

Terri-Lynne McClintic, 20, and Rafferty, 29, were arrested the following month and charged with first-degree murder and kidnapping.

Tori's remains were not found until more than three months after her disappearance, some 100 kilometres away in a field north of Guelph.

Court proceedings in McClintic's case are under a sweeping publication ban.

Preliminary hearings are held to see if there is enough evidence to go to trial.

It was not immediately clear when Rafferty's trial would begin.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/straight-to-trial-for-michael-rafferty-suspect-in-tori-stafford-death-95448799.html

[Northern Rose]

Man charged in Tori Stafford’s death to be sent straight to trial

A Woodstock, Ont., man charged in the high-profile slaying of eight-year-old Tori Stafford last year will be sent straight to trial without having a preliminary inquiry.

Michael Rafferty’s defence counsel, Dirk Derstine, and a spokesman for Ontario’s Ministry of the Attorney-General confirmed today that the accused man’s preliminary inquiry will not go ahead later this month as scheduled.

Mr. Derstine said that he and his client are extremely disappointed that the ministry opted to short-circuit a procedure that can save unnecessary trial manoeuvring and enables the defence to determine whether witnesses give consistent testimony in a case.

Tori went missing outside her Woodstock, Ont., school. After a massive search, two persons, Terri-Lynne McClintic, 19, and Mr. Rafferty were charged with her abduction and murder.

The child’s body was discovered months later.

Judge McDermid permitted the media to publish only one sentence: “As we previously reported, Terri-Lynne McClintic was scheduled to appear on April 30, 2010, in the Superior Court of Justice at Woodstock but because of a temporary publication ban, we are prohibited by court order from providing any further information until further order of the court.”

Mr. Derstine said that Mr. Rafferty's preliminary hearing, scheduled for June 21, was expected to last about four weeks. He said that the Crown’s decision to prefer an indictment saves very little time, meaning that it must be based on a trial strategy that is yet to become evident.

Brendan Crawley, a spokesman for the ministry, said that direct indictments can be used in cases "where there are compelling circumstances that require, in the interests of justice, that the matter be brought to trial as soon as possible.

"Direct Indictments are only used where Crown counsel have concluded that there is a reasonable prospect of conviction and that the continuation of the prosecution is not contrary to the public interest, and where disclosure has been made to the defence," he said.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/man-charged-in-tori-staffords-death-to-be-sent-straight-to-trial/article1589748/

[Northern Rose]

Kilometres for Kids arrives in the Sault


Last year, Rodney Stafford cycled 3,500 kilometres across Canada for his daughter, Victoria "Tori" Stafford.

This year, it's her brother, Daryn.

The Kilometres for Kids journey last year raised more than $50,000 for Child Find Ontario in honour of the eight-year- old Woodstock girl killed in April 2009. It was meant to be a one-time thing -- with no planning, Rodney jumped on a bike and took off within days of Tori's memorial service -- but last winter Daryn, 12, "asked me if he got permission to do the ride whether we could do it together.


I didn't even hesitate," said Rodney, 34, in Sault Ste. Marie Monday.

They started off on the spot where he finished : Whistler's Mountain near Jasper, Alta., where Tori had visited a favourite aunt. It was June 20, Father's Day.

"To me, the closest I felt I could be to Victoria was on top of that mountain, and I wanted to spend Father's Day with both my children."


Rodney, 34, who is separated from Daryn and Tori's mother, also cherishes the extended period he's getting to be with his son.

"It's amazing," he said. "We're both seeing sides of each other we've never seen before."

They've "got our struggles along the way, but we're making the best of it."

They have been riding a donated Fiori two-person tandem bike, sometimes with Daryn switching to a solo bike upon entering some cities. Rodney wants Kids for Kilometres 2: A Sibling's Story to be about Daryn, not him.

City council proclaimed July 19 Victoria Stafford Day, one of four cities along their route to do so. Rodney admits the campaign is not generating as much publicity but believes steam will pick up as they approach Woodstock.


For his part, Daryn is enjoying himself.

"It's hard going up the hills and stuff but we just take our time," he said.

As for what runs through his mind on the long journeys, "I think about getting to the next place."

However, he says he's "not at all" sorry he set out on the trek. His mission from the beginning was clear: "I wanted to help kids that go missing and try to prevent it."

This time out, Rodney is appealing for people to donate directly to Child Find rather than through him.

Meanwhile, the wheels of justice continue to turn for Tori's accused killers. Last month the province decided to fast track the trial of the man charged with her murder, Michael Raff erty, through a direct indictment.

Raff erty, 29, is charged with kidnapping and first-degree murder in the April 8, 2009, disappearance of the eight-year-old girl.

A date to appear before the Superior Court of Justice is expected to be set soon to begin discussions about trial dates.,

His co-accused, Terri-Lynne McClintic is expected to testify against him. McClintic, 20, waived her right to a preliminary hearing, but a sweeping publication ban from her April 30 appearance is still in place.

http://woodstocksentinelreview.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2676632