Too much information on Sundre assault trial
Re: “Trial underway in Sundre assault case” by Dan Singleton, Jan. 10.
C. S. Lewis once wrote: “I would not condemn a dog on the basis of what I read in the newspapers.” Wise man. The Gazette just ran a story on a trial underway for a Sundre assault case. This trial, which is only half over, has so far involved over four hours of examination, cross-examination, and discussion on questions of admissibility. In an attempt to achieve brevity, all this was distilled into a story that takes less than a minute to read. Needless to say, such a truncated version leaves much to be desired.
As the matter is still before the court, to be fair to all sides in such a situation, the story – if it ran at all – should simply have stated, “The first very lengthy half of the trial of a Sundre man charged with assaulting his former girlfriend took place Jan. 4. The Crown called five witnesses, three of whom were cross-examined by the defence. As an inadequate time was set for the trial, forcing it to be broken up, the judge asked that in order to avoid any further fragmentation, a full day be set aside for the remainder as that much time will clearly be needed. None of the defence witnesses have yet had the opportunity to testify.”
Selective reporting on a complex matter is hurtful to the persons involved who must live and work in the same small community.