Sign up for our newsletter!
Receive a $25 COUPON
redeemable on any
of our legal services.
Useful Links
- The Revised Statutes of British Columbia
- The Revised Statutes of Canada
- Superior Courts of British Columbia
- The Law Society of BC
- Industry Trade & Commerce website for trademark searches
- The dreaded Canada Revenue Agency website
- The BC Securities Commission
- The Canadian Legal Information Institute
- The Continuing Legal Education Society of BC
- World Justice info on class action lawsuits
- K&G Credit and Debt Professionals
- BC Courthouse Library Society
Company News: Blog
RIP Canadian Wheat Board
07 December 2011
Now that our Happy Planet mayor is back in the saddle for another term, we can be re-assured that we can continue to convert our front lawns to grow wheat. Even better news is that, since the House of Commons last week voted to end the Canadian Wheat Board's 76-year monopoly on the sale of wheat...
07 December 2011
Now that our Happy Planet mayor is back in the saddle for another term, we can be re-assured that we can continue to convert our front lawns to grow wheat. Even better news is that, since the House of Commons last week voted to end the Canadian Wheat Board's 76-year monopoly on the sale of wheat...
- 30 November 2011 Tie a light-blue ribbon round the court house tree (*)
- 28 November 2011 Chief Justice Bauman on legal funding cuts
Cameras to roll in court |
 |
 |
| Written by Chris Green |
| Saturday, 20 March 2010 00:00 |
|
A cautious thumbs-up to the Attorney General's initiative to bring cameras into the courts. Over the past 30 odd years of going to court, I've been in the situation a number of times where press coverage has been involved, and it is oft times a surreal experience to read or view a news article that appears to bear little or no resemblance to what actually transpired in court. The public often get a distorted and sensationalized version of actual courtroom events, and it’s hard to escape the conclusion that cameras and microphones may give a more accurate rendering of the proceedings. So, for the sake of accuracy, I think televised court proceedings are a good thing. I worry, however, because court proceedings are not very telegenic overall. Lawyers and witnesses are not actors. They mumble and stutter and ramble, and most of what is said is tedious, at best. Many cases move with the speed of a glacier, stopping and starting over a period of months, or even years, and even interesting trials are punctuated with long hours of droning legal argument. If judges and lawyers sometimes have a hard time keeping awake, what can we expect of the viewers? If we then begin to edit the video footage to make for better TV, we lose accuracy and are in danger of reverting to sensationalized, heavily edited reporting. I do applaud the Attorney General for having the courage to give it a try. It is only by implementing video coverage on a trial basis that we can properly assess the benefits and pitfalls. Personally, I don't think I'm quite ready for my close- up, Mr. DeMille, so let’s hope the cameras don't roll in a foreclosure or probate court anytime soon. |
