Anonymous killing: How publication bans required by law hinder public knowledge of serious crimes

When a victim who can't be named is murdered by a family member, the homicide remains a public mystery

He sat on a chair in a white room at the Surrey Pretrial Centre in his government-issued orange jumpsuit.

His age showed as he slouched slightly, a grey horseshoe-shaped strip of hair on his mostly bald head.

He killed his wife. He tried to kill his son, I think.

It was March 28, 2025, and he appeared on a monitor in video streamed into courtroom 202 at the Chilliwack Law Courts. When asked if he understood the proceedings, he said only one word.

“Yes.”

He is apparently suffering from some sort of mental illness.

So who is “he”? Unless you attend his upcoming court hearings in public courtrooms listed on public court dockets, you will probably never know his name. You won’t read it here or from any other media outlet (especially because I'm the only one paying attention) and if you happen to know it, keep it to yourself.

This is an example of what happens in our justice system when there is a serious criminal file with two important elements: 
1. The victim’s name is subject to a court-ordered publication ban, and 
2. The victim is related to the accused.

486’d

Thirteen years ago I wrote a story that was probably the most horrific case I’ve ever covered, and I had to make a decision. Do I report the name of the accused and the criminal offence he committed and the sentence he received while including no details about the crime? Or should I share the (admittedly sanitized) account of the criminal act, the sentence, and not share his name? I did the latter.

That decision was needed because this monster raped his toddler daughter and when there is a publication ban on the name of a victim of crime, that ban is in fact wider than the name. The ban is on “any information that could identify a victim or a witness not be published in any document, broadcast, or transmitted in any way.” Emphasis mine. The key words there are “could identify,” which means that when a person commits a serious crime against a family member, reporting his or her name could identify the victim. 

Another time I reported on a man who sexually abused children related to him. In that case, I did the opposite. For reasons I won't explain, it was clear that his name was more important than the details of the crimes. So we didn’t print what it was he actually did and to whom, but we printed his name and plastered his face in the newspaper and online various time over five years.

I tread lightly here because this is the Sophie’s Choice a journalist faces when covering a court case with a section 486 publication ban, a ban on the identity of victims. Breaching a publication ban can be considered its own offence or it could constitute contempt of court. The penalty could be a fine, a conditional discharge or probation order, or jail.  

IHIT on Teton

The 68-year-old man who is the subject of this story was arrested for second-degree murder on Jan. 17, 2024, after an incident between family members at a house on Teton Avenue on Fairfield Island.

Local Mounties were called to the scene around 1 p.m., the RCMP’s Integrated Homicide Investigation Team (IHIT) said in a statement at the time. When officers arrived, they found a 66-year-old woman deceased and a 37-year-old man suffering from non-life-threatening injuries. The 68-year-old suspect was also present, and was arrested without incident.

“Initial evidence indicates this was an isolated incident between three family members, with no ongoing risk to the public," investigators said in their statement.

The IHIT media statement said also that “in consideration of the evidence collected, it is not believed that the release of the victim’s name at this stage would further the investigation in any way."

Translation, we don't need your help so we aren't telling you their names.

Now what?

The 68-year-old man remains in custody and, as is standard, a section 486 publication ban was put in place protecting the names of the victims. 

I knew the name from early court appearances and, more importantly, I had the file number so I could keep track of the case as I keep track of several files at any given time. BC Supreme Court files in process are unsearchable on the Ministry of Attorney General’s court services online website. Daily court lists are posted for BC Supreme Courts but unlike provincial court, you can’t look up an offender’s name or file number to see the next appearance date or other details of the case. 

Because of the ban, his name is scrubbed from the completed court lists and slowly but surely it all but disappears. The only place his name exists for anyone close to the public is on a PDF of appearances for all BC Supreme Courts across the province I receive daily in my inbox as part of the accredited media.

Back to courtroom 202 on March. 28, his lawyer Ondine Snowden and Crown counsel Aaron Burns also appeared via video. Burns told the court that there would be an agreed statement of facts in the case, and they had ordered a forensic assessment in an advance of a finding of NCRMD, which stands for “not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.”

It was put over to April 7, then there was an appearance April 8, and a final one on April 9 via video in court in Abbotsford. The case was put over to May 5 for the next step in the disposition of this anonymous case of familial homicide by a man not being held criminally responsible for his actions. 

Clearly a tragedy in so many ways, the victim’s name shared only (that I can find) in an obituary, copied here with that name eliminated.

“It is always difficult saying goodbye to someone we love and cherish. Family and friends must say goodbye to their beloved _______ of Chilliwack, British Columbia, who passed away at the age of 66, on January 17, 2024. You can send your sympathy in the guestbook provided and share it with the family.”

As for the 37-year-old son, I don’t know his name. If he wanted to, he could make an application under section 486.51 of the criminal code to vary or revoke the ban on his name, therefore allowing his father’s name to be published. He can make it or he can ask Crown counsel to make it on his behalf.

Given there is no particularly reason to do so, it’s unlikely he will, and it's likely this homicide will remain a mystery and for all but family and friends, forgotten.

-30-

Paul J. Henderson
pauljhenderson@gmail.com
facebook.com/PaulJHendersonJournalist
instagram.com/wordsarehard_pjh
x.com/PeeJayAitch
wordsarehard-pjh.bsky.social