Newspaper challenges publication ban

The Charlottetown Guardianis challenging a ban on the publication of much of the evidence presented this week in the murder trial of John David Rayner.

'We feel that the rights of the media are being infringed a bit.' — Gary MacDougall, The Guardian

Since the trial started in Charlottetown Monday morning, journalists have only been allowed to report on one of three videotaped interviews police did with Rayner before he was charged with first-degree murder in the 2002death of Chrystal Beairsto— about one hour's worth of 22 hours of evidence.

The Guardian filed papers late Thursday afternoon giving notice it will challenge that ban.

"We feel that the rights of the media are being infringed a bit," said Guardian managing editor Gary MacDougall.

"We feel that we have the right to publish this material, and therefore since we have the right we need to be able to do that."

All of this week's evidence was presented in a voir dire, where the evidence is reviewed and then a decision is made whether to allow it as evidence.

While the evidence is presented in court in the presence of journalists, they are not allowed to report on it unless the evidence is ruled admissible.

This procedure is usually reserved for jury trials. The jury leaves the court during a voir dire so the judge can hear evidence and then decide whether to allow the jury to hear it. But in this trial there is no jury. Supreme Court Justice Wayne Cheverie is presiding over the trial by himself.

MacDougall said that should mean the media can report anything they want from the trial. Instead, the media have only been allowed to report on the one video admittedas evidence.

"Since there's no jury there, you can't prejudice a jury," he said.

"Of course you can't prejudice a judge, because they're taught what to leave out and leave in when it comes to making decisions."

The Guardian hopes to make its arguments before Cheverie on Tuesday, when the Rayner trial resumes.