(s. 486(1), (2), (5)) The factors that must be considered to decide whether to proceed are set out in s. 486.5(7): Under s. 486.4 (1), the court may make an order "directing that any information that could identify the complainant or a witness" not be published, broadcast or transmitted for any sexual offences (as listed in s. 486.4(1)(a)).
The ban was granted at the request of the lawyers for Jean Brault, Paul Coffin and Chuck Guité, who argued that intense media coverage would bias potential jurors for their upcoming criminal trials.
Shortly after the ban was imposed, however, an edited summary of Brault's testimony was posted on an American blogger's website, where it was immediately accessible and became well-known to Canadians interested in the story.
Also, the inquiry remained public, so the opposition parties were aware of what was being revealed even while their respective leaders were kept intentionally unaware to prevent them from accidentally violating the ban at a press conference.
For example, an order prohibiting publication under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 was issued forbidding any United Kingdom newspaper from publishing certain information regarding a memo alleged to be an official transcript of a conversation between U.S. President George W. Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, which, in the context of the planning for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, regarded an alleged plan to bomb selected offices of the Arabic-language television news station Al Jazeera.
Brian Cathcart of The Independent has stated that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution "ensures that the media enjoy great latitude in the coverage of criminal investigations and trials.