A publication ban on evidence presented at Vancouver Lapu Lapu Day festival massacre suspect Kai-Ji Adam Lo's mental fitness hearings has been upheld.The challenge was brought on behalf of Global News and a consortium of other outlets, and sought to allow the reporting of evidence presented at Lo's fitness hearings.Judge Reginald Harris handed down his ruling at Vancouver Provincial Court on Thursday, arguing that the risks of lifting the publication ban outweigh the benefits. He admitted that the decision was not made lightly, given the great pain this tragedy has inflicted on the community, members of which are desperate for answers..UPDATED: Vancouver Filipino festival massacre suspect deemed fit to stand trial.Lo, 30, faces 11 counts of murder and 31 counts of attempted murder after allegedly driving his vehicle through the crowded Filipino street party in Vancouver on April 26. He was deemed fit to stand trial on Wednesday following testimony from a pair of psychiatrists brought in as expert witnesses..Representing the media consortium was lawyer Daniel Coles.."Judge Harris had a hard job," he told reporters following the ruling. "He recognized that there's incredible public interest in this proceeding, that he has to balance everyone's right to information ... with Mr. Lo's right to a fair trial."Coles explained that the decision was essentially based on Harris' understanding of what a fair trial constitutes."It's disappointing for the media," he lamented, "and it's gonna be disappointing for some members of the community."."There is plenty of case law that says psychiatric evaluations — if not necessarily the reports themselves, then their contents — are made public," Coles continued. "There's lots of case law that says fitness hearing are not necessarily a private matter that should be kept from the public. That being said, this publication ban was decided on common law principles, so it's the jurisdiction of the court to control its process."Coles noted that in his view, the decision was a "novel outcome not grounded in jurisprudence," adding that it may not be entirely unprecedented.
