I want to pursue that, because I agree with you that the default should always be openness—the open court principle, public confidence in the administration of criminal justice and all of those good things. However, I'm having a hard time understanding why a judge would ever need to be able to order non-publication.
I think the example you were beginning to lead to was where a corporation is being prosecuted and you may want to leave open the possibility of going after the individual directors at a subsequent time. That might be the case.
I have two questions. First, when all of the prosecutions of the individual directors have occurred, could the public fully expect to be able to find out what the disposition was against those individuals?
Second, if openness is the default, are you confident the drafting makes it clear that's the default position? You say it's your expectation and that the judges are aligned with that view, of course, but I want to make sure that expectation is reflected in the drafting of the provision.