Article content continued

However, Mr. Krongold points out that seemingly the only cases where the Supreme Court has acknowledged a witnesses’ right to keep their identity secret are in a pair of cases involving police informants, not witnesses.

His concern stems from the idea that, if pertinent information is withheld from defence counsel, it makes it nearly impossible to cross-examine a witness.

“You really remove all the arrows from a cross examiner’s quiver,” Mr. Krongold says. “At that point, you really have a sham proceeding.”

A spokesperson for Justice Minister Peter MacKay told the Postthat the new provision merely codifies what has become common practise, indicating that the only power afforded, here, is a witness’ ability to use a pseudonym, insisting that it would protect witnesses from threats and physical harm.

The minister’s office did insist, however, that the power would be tightly limited, given that the legislation sets out that a judge may only order a witness’ identity to be kept secret where it wouldn’t hinder the accused’s fair trial rights and the administration of justice.

Michael Spratt, an Ottawa lawyer who works at the same firm as Mr. Krongold, says the power itself inherently contradicts a person’s right to a fair trial.

“This provision is perhaps the most unconstitutional provision that I’ve ever seen,” he says, calling it “odious.”

Mr. Spratt agrees with his colleague’s reading of the legislation, that it forbids disclosure of this relevant information to the defence counsel.

“You say you saw a drug transaction from your apartment — well where is your apartment?” Says Mr. Spratt, imagining one scenario.

Mr. Spratt adds that this provision, “is geared towards national security cases,” given that it compliments the powers to hold top-secret trials under Canada’s anti-terror laws.

Arguing that there is just about nothing that could improve the idea, Mr. Spratt says “it will either never be used, or if it is used, it will be struck down at the first opportunity.”