A Yukon Supreme Court deputy judge has quashed a subpoena that called for the new editor of the Yukon News to testify during a trial.

Ashley Joannou was subpoenaed by the Crown to testify in Tamara Goeppel’s trial, which began Monday.

Justice John Vertes quashed the subpoena before the trial began.

Richard Fowler, Goeppel’s lawyer, told the court the application was not brought forward by his client. He called it a matter between the newspaper and the Crown.

Goeppel was charged with violating the Yukon Elections Act when she ran for office in the 2016 territorial election as a Liberal.

She pled guilty this morning to one count of violating the act.

Meagan Hannan, the lawyer representing Joannou, told the court the subpoena disregarded the freedom of the press.

She argued that forcing a reporter to testify in a legal proceeding should be used as a last resort when there are no other ways to obtain the desired information.

Joannou was a reporter at the News at the time of Goeppel’s alleged offences, writing a story on the matter that was published Oct. 28, 2016. The Crown was seeking her to give evidence based on the statements in the article.

Hannan argued that Joannou would not be giving material evidence, and that her testimony would not be able to prove or disprove anything.

Hannan said the justice of the peace who signed off on the subpoena on Aug. 7 was not aware of the rules regarding summoning a member of the media for testimony. She felt this violated the freedom of the press guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Hannan said the justice of the peace should have taken reasonable steps to find if there was an alternate source for same information. She could not find a record of that having been done.

“Those factors must be considered in every case,” Hannan said.

She explained the media plays a vital role in a democratic society, and a reporter is not a witness to a crime.

Joannou was not at the scene of any alleged crime with a camera taking pictures nor filming proceedings, Hannan noted; she was reporting after the fact.

The lawyer said it’s important to keep this as a last resort because the media should not be an investigative branch of the police.

This could negatively impact the media, Hannan added. It could call into question the independence and the credibility of the affected media outlet.

Speaking to this case specifically, she explained that forcing Joannou to testify could affect the publication’s ability to gather news, since it has only three reporters.

She felt that if these factors had been considered, the subpoena would never have been issued.

“The subpoena should be quashed,” Hannan said.

Crown prosecutor Leo Lane said there was nothing to show what the justice of the peace was told on alternative sources when the subpoena was issued.

Lane said Joannou’s testimony would be relevant, and she would be providing material evidence.

Vertes asked why the Crown needed her testimony. Lane said he wanted to look at the statements in the article.

Vertes pointed out that there are other witnesses who could verify those statements, and the only reason the reporter would have to testify is if Goeppel refuted what was stated in the article.

Lane said at this point in the trial, he had to assume Goeppel would say nothing.

Joannou’s testimony may not be determinative on its own, he added, but it would play into the other evidence presented.

Quashing the petition, he argued, would unfairly hamper the Crown.

As for alternate sources, the Crown said there is evidence that there was other people around during the alleged offences, but there was no indication in the article. He thus argued there was no alternative but to call Joannou.

He said he did not want to see Joannou’s notes nor hear any recordings. He estimated that her entire testimony could be as short as one hour long.

He felt the subpoena was reasonable because the publication voluntarily put the information out into the public sphere.

Vertes offered an alternative. He suggested having the trial move forward, and, if the Crown felt Joannou’s testimony was needed, the trial judge, John Faulkner could make that decision if necessary. He reasoned that the trial judge would have a better vantage point to evaluate the subpoena.

Lane did not disagree but stated that this could impede cross-examination.

He added that the subpoena does not affect freedom of the press and that when someone talks to the media, he or she should realize that information can be used in court later.

Hannan responded that it’s pure speculation to assume what Goeppel would or would not say in court.

In his reasoning, Vertes said nothing in the media interview leading up to the story was confidential.

He said he did not see any evidence that the justice of the peace had been aware of any alternative sources for the information. With that, he was not satisfied that Joannou would be giving material evidence.

At best, the judge said, she would be giving general comments made by others, not facts.

He ruled her testimony is not necessary, and quashed the subpoena.