Trial by media

JC said :

bigred said :

But the issue with case John refers to is really the immaturity of the police and prosecutors. They failed to properly test the evidence and make the appropriate judgements about how the case would go when tested in a court. In my view, the system design is quite fine but the application failed.

Fine, if the majority community opinion is that there is a fundamental fault let us have a proper review. But please, do not substitute bad with worse on the reactions of a few.

How can naming someone who may be innocent can in any way improve the legal outcome. Or more to the point how can not naming them make the system worse?

As mentioned above in this day and age I reckon it is in the best interest of all including the community for names etx to be kept out of the media. Apart from the potential reputational risk for a wrongly accused which will be with them forever, electronic media means it would be much harder in trial by jury cases to find jurors who are totally impartial and have not been influenced by the media. All one needs to do is google an accused and voila not hard to find media reports which may well be less than factual.

My perusal of existing laws and procedures shows enough flexibility to suppress names when required. Is John suggesting the various responsible Ministers (I count three) are unable to direct the constabulary? If so, doesn’t that raise a different issue?

What happened at ADFA is what happens when young men and women under the same roof imbibe.

It is just too convenient and it is not the first time it has happened. The same thing is happening at other local tertiary institutions.

The administrators need to segregate the sexes on the campus or it will happen again and again.

bigred said :

But the issue with case John refers to is really the immaturity of the police and prosecutors. They failed to properly test the evidence and make the appropriate judgements about how the case would go when tested in a court. In my view, the system design is quite fine but the application failed.

Fine, if the majority community opinion is that there is a fundamental fault let us have a proper review. But please, do not substitute bad with worse on the reactions of a few.

How can naming someone who may be innocent can in any way improve the legal outcome. Or more to the point how can not naming them make the system worse?

As mentioned above in this day and age I reckon it is in the best interest of all including the community for names etx to be kept out of the media. Apart from the potential reputational risk for a wrongly accused which will be with them forever, electronic media means it would be much harder in trial by jury cases to find jurors who are totally impartial and have not been influenced by the media. All one needs to do is google an accused and voila not hard to find media reports which may well be less than factual.

But the issue with case John refers to is really the immaturity of the police and prosecutors. They failed to properly test the evidence and make the appropriate judgements about how the case would go when tested in a court. In my view, the system design is quite fine but the application failed.

Fine, if the majority community opinion is that there is a fundamental fault let us have a proper review. But please, do not substitute bad with worse on the reactions of a few.

Must admit I have always thought it odd that an accused can be named and details and pics splashed over the news without having actually been found guilty. Once found guilty yeah name and shame but until such time names and pictures should not be in the public domain.

Easier said than done of course especially in this day and age of social media in particular. But access to media like that and indeed media such as this very board is what makes this kind of thing even more important.

It is a difficult issue to resolve.

There is a longstanding principle that justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done and I think most of us would agree that there is considerable power to that position. However, I think the OP is drawing a distinction between justice being seen to be done and seeing who justice is being done too. That is a much more ambiguous proposition.

Any member of the public may attend any court case, with a few special exceptions. Reporters are members of the public, and so are the readers or listeners they represent. Reporters therefore have the right to attend court cases, and a duty to be there whenever possible on behalf of their readers and listeners who cannot be there.

The decision as to when it is reasonable to name the perpetrator of a crime tends to be clear only in hindsight. For example, it is easy-ish to now question the naming of David Harold Eastman, given his conviction was quashed 19 years after his conviction and he still seems likely to face a retrial – a retrial for which it will be difficult to find a local jury who are unfamiliar with his name and reputation. Waiting for a trial to be over, may not adequately deal with the issues being raised.

There is trial by judicial process, trial by media and trial by social media. Courts do as they do. Of the remaining two, Journalists have, at least, a clear role and a professional code of conduct. Bloggers, “influencers”, opinion piece writers and their commentors, etc, do not have that degree of constraint placed on them.

I am not sure that any remedy suggested so far is not worse than the current arrangement.

I have to agree with you, John. I read the article regarding the ADFA student’s acquittal and thought it was unbelievably unfair that his name and face have been plastered all over print and the web, but the woman who brought the false charge against him has her identity protected. Shameful.