在法庭旁听的记者包括本地英文媒体的记者对此议论纷纷，众人对媒体禁止报道令的解读并不相同。就此，星星生活记者电话采访本地主要受理刑事案件的知名华裔律师栗钧，介绍在该禁令下媒体应当把握的分寸和注意事项。
（星星生活记者捷克佳报道）备受关注的多伦多华裔金融投资人唐炜臻保释聆讯结果21日下午终见分晓，法官Paul Mushiwski宣布唐炜臻的保释未能获得通过。唐炜臻将在25日通过视频进行聆讯。同时，应辨方律师卡迪(Loftus Cuddy)的请求，决定颁布媒体禁止报道令，并即刻起执行。
在法庭旁听的记者包括本地英文媒体的记者对此议论纷纷，众人对媒体禁止报道令的解读并不相同。就此，星星生活记者电话采访本地主要受理刑事案件的知名华裔律师栗钧，介绍在该禁令下媒体应当把握的分寸和注意事项。
栗钧律师在轰动北美的华裔女童张东岳案中，曾与著名大律师罗森（John Rosen）一同担任被告陈敏的辩护律师。
栗钧律师介绍说，在加拿大的法律条文中，有多处涉及有关禁止媒体报道的内容，如涉及隐私的性侵犯细节，未成年人的姓名等。还有就是在预审听证（preliminary inquiry）或保释聆讯（bail hearing）期间的媒体禁止报道令(Publication Ban)。
他说，此次法官颁布的禁令是依据加拿大刑法第517条，所针对的是第515条有关保释聆讯的内容。媒体另外会经常遇到的是在一些重大案件的预审听证期间，禁止媒体报道相关的内容，涉及刑法中的第539条。他说，几年前张东岳案对于嫌犯陈敏的预审听证，法庭当时便依据第539条颁布媒体禁止报道令，预审的证据不能发表。
唐炜臻的律师卡迪21日在庭外对媒体称，他之所以提出媒体禁止报道令的申请，是因为近日有关唐炜臻案的担保人作证的细节经媒体的广泛传播，已影响到担保人的个人生活。
栗钧律师介绍说，通常，发布媒体禁止报道令主要是考虑对于遴选陪审团成员的干扰，由于媒体报道影响公众的判断力，法庭难于选择完全没有被舆论污染的陪审员，以避免陪审员在听证前已有先入为主的个人倾向和偏见。他表示，颁布媒体禁止报道令可有效地保证被告得到公正的审判。
根据刑法第517条，法庭内所出示的证据，所提供的资料信息，法庭内的陈述和理由，均不能以任何形式的文档发表，亦不能通过其他形式播送或传播。栗钧律师说，这里的法律用语representations可理解为通常意义上的词汇statement，是指包括双方律师的辩论内容及法官的陈述和插话等内容。通俗地说，就是禁令之下，法庭的庭议内容不能报道。
栗钧律师不认为该项条款的可操作性较差。他说，仅仅从字面上理解，媒体禁止报道令只是限制于法庭内，但并不包括法庭外的言论。庭外支持者反对者的言论，律师在庭外的言论均不受此禁令的限制。此外，警方公布的相关资料和对被告的指控，媒体仍可以继续引用。
栗钧强调说，有关保释聆讯的媒体禁止报道令的期限将会一直持续到案件的结束，即法庭的审理结束，宣判被告无罪或有罪。
栗钧表示，从刑法执行过程中的一些相关案例来看，有些法庭的内容还是可以报道的。
他援引1987年魁省高等法院的一个判例说，其中的要点是，法官没有权利禁止媒体报道被告的名字，和记者从警察那里得到的消息。但如果发表这样的文章，令执法程序受到干扰，则有可能构成蔑视法庭罪。
栗钧说，还有一个案例是1982年安省高等法院上诉庭的判例，其内容是法官不能禁止媒体报道法庭裁决是否保释的结果，但禁止报道裁决的任何理由。
他表示，这只是他个人对于刑法的理解，建议媒体再征询其他律师的意见以相互佐证，还有负责此案的责任警官。栗钧同时建议，由于此禁令的发布，因此不要在各种媒体包括互联网上发布或讨论有关此案的证据，以免影响案件的公正审理。
栗钧补充说，唐炜臻此次在安省刑事庭的保释失败并不意味着其家人不能再次为唐申请保释。他说，如果理由充分或有新的担保人，唐的家人仍可以向安省高等法院申请保释聆讯。但准备法庭记录文本（transcript）会花费一定的时间。
（注：本文经过栗钧律师的审阅）
附：加拿大刑法的有关保释聆讯和预审听证期间的媒体禁止报道令
/*****/
Order directing matters not to be published for specified period
517. (1) If the prosecutor or the accused intends to show cause under section 515, he or she shall so state to the justice and the justice may, and shall on application by the accused, before or at any time during the course of the proceedings under that section, make an order directing that the evidence taken, the information given or the representations made and the reasons, if any, given or to be given by the justice shall not be published in any document, or broadcast or transmitted in any way before such time as
(a) if a preliminary inquiry is held, the accused in respect of whom the proceedings are held is discharged; or
(b) if the accused in respect of whom the proceedings are held is tried or ordered to stand trial, the trial is ended.
Failure to comply
(2) Every one who fails without lawful excuse, the proof of which lies on him, to comply with an order made under subsection (1) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
(3) [Repealed, 2005, c. 32, s. 17]
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 517; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 101(E); 2005, c. 32, s. 17.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/fra/C-46/page-11.html#codese:517
/*****/
Order restricting publication of evidence taken at preliminary inquiry
539. (1) Prior to the commencement of the taking of evidence at a preliminary inquiry, the justice holding the inquiry
(a) may, if application therefor is made by the prosecutor, and
(b) shall, if application therefor is made by any of the accused, make an order directing that the evidence taken at the inquiry shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way before such time as, in respect of each of the accused,
(c) he or she is discharged, or
(d) if he or she is ordered to stand trial, the trial is ended.
Accused to be informed of right to apply for order
(2) Where an accused is not represented by counsel at a preliminary inquiry, the justice holding the inquiry shall, prior to the commencement of the taking of evidence at the inquiry, inform the accused of his right to make application under subsection (1).
Failure to comply with order
(3) Every one who fails to comply with an order made pursuant to subsection (1) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
(4) [Repealed, 2005, c. 32, s. 18]
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 539; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 97; 2005, c. 32, s. 18.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/fra/C-46/page-12.html#codese:539
加通社的报道
‘Chinese Warren Buffett’ denied bail
By Susanna Kelley, THE CANADIAN PRESS
Last Updated: 21st January 2010, 9:30pm
TORONTO – A Toronto financial adviser charged with defrauding about 100 investors in Canada, the United States and China of some $30 million through a Ponzi scheme was denied bail Thursday.
Weizhen Tang, who is charged with fraud over $5,000, voluntarily returned to Canada last week from China and has been in Toronto’s Don Jail awaiting his bail hearing.
“I was hoping Mr. Tang would get out and I felt that all the purposes of justice would be served by judicial release at this time,” defence lawyer Loftus Cuddy said outside the court.
“But Mr. Tang and I completely accept and respect the processes that are in place.”
However, Cuddy and his client are not giving up on getting Tang out of jail. The lawyer said he would “take advantage of every opportunity to obtain the judicial release that we think is appropriate.”
Tang was led into court Thursday with his hands cuffed behind his back. The handcuffs were removed when he entered the prisoner’s box, wearing a neatly pressed jacket and a crisp shirt.
Tang’s wife, Hong Xiao, also attended court and left looking upset after he was denied bail.
The reasons for denying Tang bail and the evidence heard during the hearing were placed under a publication ban Thursday.
Cuddy said he would find out Monday where Tang would be imprisoned during the time leading up to the trial.
Toronto police say alleged victims have been located in the United States and China as well as Canada.
Tang is accused of using his hedge fund, the Oversea Chinese Fund Limited Partnership, to defraud investors between January 2006 and March 2009.
A Canada-wide arrest warrant was issued for Tang on Jan. 6 when he didn’t return to Canada from China on Dec. 29 as arranged.
Well known in Toronto’s Chinese community, Tang returned voluntarily from Shanghai Jan. 13.
Tang, who called himself the Chinese Warren Buffett, has said he’s innocent of the charges.
He also faces trial April 19 on 12 counts of breaching the Securities Act that were laid last June by the Ontario Securities Commission in connection with the Oversea Chinese Fund Limited Partnership.
Last April, a U.S. federal judge granted emergency relief for U.S. investors, freezing the assets of Tang and several of his businesses and appointed a receiver to take control of those assets.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission alleges Tang told investors of the Ponzi scheme in a letter in February 2009. 20:35ET 21-01-10
http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2010/01/21/12563936.html
