THESE DAYS, it seems just about everyone supports in principle the public’s right to know, championing the need for such things as open courts, regulation in the public interest, and transparency and accountability for public institutions and those in public office.

But when the chips come down, too often that long-held right falls victim to such things as an asserted right to privacy, protection of corporate secrets or even the mere possibility that disclosure could trigger civil litigation.

True, we have seen governments at different levels pass freedom of information legislation, but even then those seeking the information routinely encounter institutional barriers that make acquisition of that information both costly and inordinately time-consuming.

In recent weeks we have had some good examples of the benefits that came from rarely-exercised openness, as well as the unsatisfactory and even disastrous consequences of the public being left ignorant.

Some of those examples, both good and bad, arose in our criminal justice system.

Two involved former politicians, who faced serious criminal charges, former Liberal attorney general Michael Bryant and and former Conservative MP Rahim Jaffer.

The incidents that led to the charges they faced led to both facing intense public scrutiny, and while the ultimate disposition of their charges was remarkably similar, with all being withdrawn before trial, the levels of disclosure were dramatically different.

In the case of Mr. Bryant, the reasons for all charges stemming from the death of a bicycle courier being dropped were fully disclosed by an independent prosecutor brought in from British Columbia. The detailed submission in open court for reporters to hear was even posted online for all to read, demonstrating that justice was not only done, but seen to be done, in a difficult case.

Contrast that with the public’s treatment when it came to the Crown withdrawing charges of cocaine possession, impaired driving and speeding against Mr. Jaffer in response to him admitting to the misdemeanour of careless driving. There, the Crown merely offered unspecified “legal reasons” for its decision, leading to rumours and speculation that Mr. Jaffer had received special treatment or that in some way his Charter rights had been seriously breached following his arrest by Caledon OPP.

As we see it, the Bryant case offers a model that should be followed every time the Crown opts to withdraw charges on concluding there is no reasonable prospect of conviction.

In a nutshell, the Crown’s responsibility should be to let the public know precisely why such a conclusion was reached, so real information displaces rumours and respect for the administration of justice is maintained and even reinforced.

Then there is the case of Terri-Lynne McClintic, 20, who, with Michael Rafferty, 29, faces charges of firstdegree murder and kidnapping in the death last year of eight-year-old Tori Stafford.

For some reason, court proceedings in Ms. McClintic’s case are under a sweeping publication ban which includes even disclosure of whether she was present for those proceedings. All the public now knows is that following those proceedings the Crown decided last week to proceed against Mr. Rafferty by direct indictment rather than holding a preliminary hearing that was scheduled to start June 21.

Normally, early court appearances by anyone facing serious criminal charges include publication bans that extend only to evidence given. But we may never know either the rationale behind Justice Dougald McDermid’s ban or whether it was appropriate in the circumstances.

However, the dangers involved in leaving the public ignorant extend far beyond our courtrooms.

A classic example of a situation where corporate rights have been deemed to far outweigh the public’s right to know is in the area of offshore drilling.

Even today, in the midst of an environmental catastrophe the likes of which we have never previously witnessed, the public knows virtually nothing concerning the extent to which regulation, or its virtual absence, played a role in the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster.

And to this day we are just as ignorant concerning what, if anything, Canadian regulators have done or are doing to prevent a similar disaster occurring off Newfoundland or in the Canadian Arctic.

One would think that such dangerous exploratory ventures should have been subject to at least as much public scrutiny as we routinely see during an environmental assessment, or as will occur as the Ontario Municipal Board determines the fate of the Orica explosives storage facility in East Luther Grand Valley.

We suspect that BP now wishes its fateful decision to explore an untapped reservoir a mile below sea level had been subject to at least the sort of scrutiny it would have faced in proposing to build a new refinery.