Attendance at a recent law and media workshop organized by the Law Society of B.C. proved to be an entertaining and eye-opening experience.

The five panelists included two media lawyers (David Sutherland and Dan Burnett), two journalists (veteran Global BC TV reporter John Daly and Victoria Times Colonist court reporter Louise Dickson) and the indefatigable Justice Geoffrey Gaul of the Supreme Court of B.C. Gaul was the unexpected target of frustrated journalists over the issue of publication bans and the judiciary's lack of leadership in making the court system more accessible - as the provincial government keeps promising - particularly at the court clerk's level.

Gaul weathered the storm gracefully. But even he didn't respond to the question as to why publication bans exist when it involves the name of a dead teen, a fact I didn't know. Unless the parents approve it, the name is not allowed to be reported. A frustrated Daly asked: "What difference is it going to make if the name is out there?"

I was long overdue for a refresher course on legal issues pertaining to the media, such as publication bans, and hearing about legal hot spots for journalists. Even though reporters believe they've done due diligence in researching a story, it's always unsettling to receive - as I once did - a letter from a lawyer after a story has appeared in the paper. I dropped about five pounds in a week from that experience.

A twist to suing a media outlet is a recent case of a doctor suing sources who appeared in a CBC TV report, but not suing the CBC, presumably because it has money to mount a strong legal defence whereas the sources don't.

Publication bans, including the recent decision by the Supreme Court to uphold a decision to impose a blanket publication ban on bail hearings, are an obvious sore spot for journalists.

As much of a sore spot as publication bans are, what was shocking to hear were reporters' frustrations with fees, court clerks and the uneven access to public court records because a court clerk was power tripping, didn't know their job or followed an institutional attitude to blocking access to what is public information.

Say what?

Here's what Times Colonist reporter Dickson recently experienced. At a first-degree murder trial of a young man charged with killing a UVic student and shooting two others, Dickson and two other reporters could not hear what the accused said before the judge imposed his sentence.

The young man was in the prisoner's box but did not have a microphone. After the sheriffs led the prisoner away, the reporters asked the court clerk to replay the 30-second tape. The clerk refused, even though the Crown counsel said it was OK.

"So here you have three reporters covering a jury trial in B.C. Supreme Court and when the man convicted of shooting three people finally stands up and speaks, you don't know what he said and court staff won't let you check the quote for accuracy," Dickson said at the workshop. "This is the disconnect. How does that even make sense?"

I suggest reading Dickson and Times Colonist colleagues Lindsay Kines and Rob Shaw's February four-part investigation Access Denied, which exposes how the principle of public access to courts can be violated by the courts, their officials and staff. After reading it, write to your MLA to insist the government makes good on its promise to provide proper public access and implement a consistent policy provincewide.

The public needs to have confidence in the court system. Secrets don't serve anyone. Or as Daly said: "We're in a low-grade democracy - and it's up to citizens to change that."

There is a small bit of good news. After intense industry lobbying, Attorney General Mike de Jong did scrap the online search fees for criminal and traffic court records, which just came into effect.

Fiona Hughes is the assistant editor of the Vancouver Courier, a sister paper of The Record.