Gruesome evidence at Porritt inquest

I’ve been sad to see the press articles labelling the Porritt family dysfunctional. There has been selective media reporting of some comments by self-declared ‘friends of the family’ at the inquest that suit the storyline and ignore others from friends at the inquest.

The media is feeding the need of most of us to feel that such an horrific situation is not going to happen to us by painting the parents as abnormal. This is a very sad example of ‘blaming the victim’ so we can all feel safe.

If the police had been able to charge a suspect without using the inquest process to get their suspect on the witness stand, we would have been spared these publicly aired opinions that can only harm the memory of a well-intentioned mother as well as her hisband and children.

So he has.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,19928024-5005961,00.html

What’s the bet he dissapears again?

I believe young Porritt has been bailed.

I think this is the relevant section which outlines when the Coroner can avoid a hearing.

CORONERS ACT 1997 – SECT 14
Decision not to conduct hearing

(1) A coroner may decide not to conduct a hearing into a death if, after consideration of information given to a coroner relating to the death of a person, the coroner is satisfied that—

(a) the manner and cause of death are sufficiently disclosed; and

(b) a hearing is unnecessary.

(2) A coroner shall not dispense with conducting a hearing into a death if the coroner has reasonable grounds for believing that the person died—

(a) in custody; or

(b) while under, or as a result of the administration of, an anaesthetic administered in the course of a medical, surgical or dental operation.

(3) A coroner who decides not to conduct a hearing into a death shall give to the Chief Coroner and a member of the immediate family of the deceased written notice of his or her decision including the grounds on which the decision was based.

Thus if an arrest has been made trial underway etc then “manner and cause of death are sufficiently disclosed” would be satisfied.

The coroner has to examine every suspicious death. More often than not there is nothing in it, the person died of natural causes etc etc. In some cases however, in the inquest a lot of information will come out which links a particular person to the death in a criminal way. If that is the case the coroner can stop the inquest and recommend to the DPP that they commence proceedings against said person.

Thanks Blinker.
“But given that the rules of evidence… make it easy for a fair trial to occur (if one ever does).”
If that is the case what will the inquiry realistically achieve?
What does it hope to achieve?

It’s looking a bit like there isn’t enough evidence to have a reasonable chance of a successful prosecution and that’s why a coronial rather than arrest etc. But given that the rules of evidence (ie the Evidence Act) don’t apply in a coronial and hence all her family and friends are proffering their opinions that the boy did it (which would not be admissible in a trial) coupled with the media coverage it’s not going to make it easy for a fair trial to occur (if one ever does).

I don’t know much about law, Why is there an inquest and not a trial or whatever, haven’t they got enough to arrest the main suspect?

Including today, both the Canberra Times & Daily Terror were saying the cause of Ms Porritts death was not being released. The Terror reported a week or so ago that the cause of death was ‘over 50 stab wounds’. Why are we treated by mugs by the Plod?

restraining order was taken out a few years back.