Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Recruiting experts in
Accountancy & Finance

Ron Cahill was trying to defend “public figure”?

By johnboy - 20 September 2010 11

The Ron Cahill affair takes another strange turn today with his successor as Chief Magistrate, John Burns, explaining his reasons for blowing the whistle on the trial of the “public figure” who can’t be named but has been in the words of the Canberra Times: “charged with assaulting his child”.

The Chief Magistrate says in his article that he and Ms Fryar were prompted to act by a passage in a document sent by Mr Cahill to a Victorian magistrate called in to hear the case, Peter Lauritsen.

The passage made a suggestion about the state of mind of the accused when he committed the alleged offence, Mr Burns has written.

Mr Burns and Ms Fryar had been concerned that the document might have indicated to Mr Lauritsen that the man was in a state of mind ”consistent with innocence” when he hit the young person.

It would be nice if the public could be informed as to who we’re actually talking about. It’s quite important.

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
11 Responses to
Ron Cahill was trying to defend “public figure”?
bikeshopgirl 9:47 pm 20 Sep 10

This story has been bugging me since I read the first highly dog whistling article in the CT. I’m not in the loop, but have developed my own theory about who it is. Anyway, it seems to me that the ‘protecting the victim’ line being run might actually be working more in the interests of the offender than his victim, and that the only reason she would be likely to harm herself if her stepfather’s abuse was openly discussed, is that he might lose his job, thereby making her even more of a victim (i.e. she can’t get him to take responsibility for his actions through the justice system). Talk about victimising the victim.
There’s something very wrong about this local picture of justice, responsibility and equality of law enforcement.

miamoto7 6:04 pm 20 Sep 10

OP said:

“It would be nice if the public could be informed as to who we’re actually talking about. It’s quite important.”

Actually, the reason why the public figure is unnamed is to protect the identity of the victim in this case (who is a minor). That’s due to Victims of Crime legislation (or something similar).

And yeah, I know who it is too. I think that half the legal fraternity in Canberra knows. Still, it’s an unhappy story for all involved. No use in naming and shaming here – enough names and careers have been sullied in this mess.

The Frots 4:33 pm 20 Sep 10

Hmmm. Well, I don’t who it was…………..but I’m damn sure we should. If it was any of us, well, needless to say we’d be cutting out press clippings for the scrapbook.

It really isn’t good enough that this is ‘hidden’ when it’s a public figure. For example, if he is a senior public servant, I have no doubt whatsoever that he (or she) would be right behind public exposure of a ‘fiend’ in their own organisation.

Damn his eyes I say! Let us know…………………….or just whisper it………I’m listening………..

dvaey 3:23 pm 20 Sep 10

I dont know, and dont really care either way, unless its a person of trust or influence. I think it would be useful at least to know WHY this person is a public figure, and do their crimes affect their role or position in society?

Many other criminal offenders families suffer from their names being published, why is this family so different to be shielded where the family of a drink driver or car thief could be published without a care for the affect on the family.

PM 2:01 pm 20 Sep 10

I know. Quite a few people do.

willo 1:25 pm 20 Sep 10

tell me then johnboy….and i’ll tell everyone else……

johnboy 1:15 pm 20 Sep 10

Oh the media all know, but we get locked up if we say.

Gungahlin Al 1:08 pm 20 Sep 10

I’ve been surprised it hasn’t come out as yet. Canberra not being that good at keeping secrets and all…

colourful sydney rac 11:38 am 20 Sep 10

That is a tough one. I think you are right that “It would be nice if the public could be informed as to who we’re actually talking about. It’s quite important.” but, it is also important to protect the privacy of his child that has alledgedly been assaulted.

BimboGeek 11:23 am 20 Sep 10

I was definitely in a state of mind consistent with innocence when an egg struck my van and in the minutes following.

p1 10:52 am 20 Sep 10

…the man was in a state of mind ”consistent with innocence” when he hit the young person.

I am always in this state of mind when I commit crimes.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site