On May 6, 2002, Star readers were told a veteran Toronto police officer had been charged with sexual assault.
Case details were sketchy, but the accused officer was named in a brief news story. Cryptically, the paper reported the sexual assault charge and another charge of assault against the cop were related to “an off-duty matter.”
Upon his arrest, the senior cop was suspended from his job and held in custody 11 days, his lawyer, Peter Brauti, told the ombud Thursday.
When a justice of the peace released him (with no bail conditions), the officer was reinstated two weeks later and returned to work, Brauti said.
Thirteen months later at the preliminary hearing, the woman complainant’s identity was protected by a publication ban.
Nothing unusual there.
But it was unusual to also ban the media from reporting the name of the accused officer.
As Brauti explained it, the preliminary hearing went well for the defence, and was converted into a trial.
The Star didn’t cover the trial, so details of the case went unreported.
On Sept. 29, Justice Peter Wright acquitted the accused. For reasons not understood, the court reimposed the publication ban, Brauti said.
Neither the crown nor the defence actively opposed the ban, the defence lawyer said. He noted his client happy the ordeal was over didn’t take a position one way or other on it.
“He’s not looking for publicity,” the defence lawyer said.
But the unusual ban, apparently protecting a sexual assault complainant whose story fell apart at trial, has created a dilemma for the paper.
The Star can’t clear the officer’s name or report details of the case, explained deputy city editor Dave Annis, who is in charge of the new 905 Newsroom based in Vaughan:
“It’s frustrating, if not absurd, that we are legally prevented from doing the right thing. When we name someone charged with a crime, the onus is on us to report the outcome, especially if charges are dropped or stayed, or if the defendant is found not guilty. Sometimes we fail to do so, and are deservedly rapped on the knuckles.”
The ombud shares Annis’ frustration. The public deserves the whole story. And the officer’s name needs to be publicly cleared.
————————————————————————
UNDRAPED GODDESS. Durga is the multi-armed, Hindu goddess of power. Each fall, statues of Durga are worshipped for nine days at prayer festivals, and immersed in water.
Last Saturday, the Star ran a Reuters photo of a craftsman in India making a statue of Durga. It ran with a feature on Hindu festival preparations here.
The idol in the large colour photo was unclothed, dramatically so. The picture stirred strong protests from some Hindu readers who said the undraped, frontal view was at least disrespectful, at worst “blasphemous.”
Said an editor: “We’re sorry if this representation of the goddess offended some readers. It was unintentional.” An effort to photograph a local statue being built had failed, she explained. So the wire photo was used.
Apparently, the Star didn’t understand the idol would never appear unclothed.
When asked, several Hindus said the photo didn’t offend them.
Still, it’s a reminder that matters of faith are delicate. Editors need to guard against insensitivity.
