Not without my name

A woman in Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada, went missing for 27 days. As most people feared the worst, she was suddenly found on a city street and quickly brought to police. Later in the day, a man named Roméo Jacques Cormier was arrested, and the following morning, he was charged with many criminal acts, including one count of sexual assault.

Before he appeared in court, the name of the accused was unknown, but the kidnapped woman’s name was on everyone’s lips. For weeks people called in with possible tips, and every effort was made to keep her name and face in the media. When it was announced that she had been found alive, an entire province breathed a collective sigh of relief.

However, it would seem that was the last time we would see her name in print or hear it on the radio or on TV. You see, Canadian criminal law says a judge must grant an order prohibiting the publication of a victim’s name or any information that might lead to her identification upon request from the victim or, in this case, the prosecutor if the alleged offender is charged with a “sexual offence.”

For now, then, we will have to settle for She-who-must-not-be-named. The accused is known to have been charged with kidnapping, unlawful confinement, theft of money using violence, assault with a knife, uttering death threats, and – you guessed it – sexual assault. He is now named, but even if She-who-must-not-be-named must not be named, we all know who it is.

The judge’s order is routine and is meant to encourage victims of sexual assault to come forward without fear of undue exposure given the nature of the charge. Most sexual assault victims aren’t given this much publicity before escaping from their kidnapper. In those cases, an order to prevent the victim from being identified makes sense. (Some people don’t agree with such practices at all, but that’s another story entirely.)

However, in this case, one must wonder if there is an element of overkill. I mean, really, are we supposed to just forget who she is?

Then again, I just discovered some media have taken another path. They continue to name her but avoid all reference to sexual assault. Technically, the alleged victim of a sexual assault cannot be identified in relation to the charge. If the charge is not mentioned in a media report, and none of the reporting speaks of sexual assault, then perhaps naming her is allowed. I must admit that in all my years as a reporter and, later, as one who follows news, I never imagined a scenario like this. Another item of interest: Those who continue to name the victim are French-language media, while the English media are mentioning the sexual assault and, thereby, avoiding the victim’s name.

For those who want to know, the section of the Criminal Code of Canada dealing with publications bans in cases of sexual offences is to be found in Part XV, which deals with, among other things, “General Powers of Certain Officials.” As of the most recent consolidation, the section dealing with an “Order restricting publication –sexual offences” was numbered 486.4.

Paragraph 486.4(1)(b) does provide for a publication ban for two or more offences being dealt with in the same proceeding, at least one of which is covered in the preceding paragraph. Paragraph 486.4(1)(a) lists the different offences for which there can be a publication ban. I’m not sure how they can skirt this since the other offences would theoretically be tried at the same time. Then again, the trial has yet to occur. Perhaps this early in the game, it’s possible to avoid sanctions this way.