Comments on: The front page is no place to judge a terror trial http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/10/27/the-front-page-is-no-place-to-judge-a-terror-trial/ now with extra source Sun, 12 Feb 2012 09:16:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Richard Murphy http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/10/27/the-front-page-is-no-place-to-judge-a-terror-trial/#comment-43151 Richard Murphy Tue, 27 Oct 2009 09:50:38 +0000 http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/10/27/the-front-page-is-no-place-to-judge-a-terror-trial/#comment-43151 Think of it as a cri de coeur, James. Think of it as a cri de coeur, James.

]]> By: james mcdonald http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/10/27/the-front-page-is-no-place-to-judge-a-terror-trial/#comment-43145 james mcdonald Tue, 27 Oct 2009 09:18:10 +0000 http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/10/27/the-front-page-is-no-place-to-judge-a-terror-trial/#comment-43145 Richard I'm not sure if what you seem to have just said about Sharia law, Muslims, or defendants, is what you meant, but I suggest asking the moderator to take that one down. Richard I’m not sure if what you seem to have just said about Sharia law, Muslims, or defendants, is what you meant, but I suggest asking the moderator to take that one down.

]]> By: Richard Murphy http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/10/27/the-front-page-is-no-place-to-judge-a-terror-trial/#comment-43139 Richard Murphy Tue, 27 Oct 2009 08:17:36 +0000 http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/10/27/the-front-page-is-no-place-to-judge-a-terror-trial/#comment-43139 Better still, offer the accused a dose of their own Sharia law, much more appropriate for subhumans. Better still, offer the accused a dose of their own Sharia law, much more appropriate for subhumans.

]]> By: james mcdonald http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/10/27/the-front-page-is-no-place-to-judge-a-terror-trial/#comment-43099 james mcdonald Tue, 27 Oct 2009 05:33:54 +0000 http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/10/27/the-front-page-is-no-place-to-judge-a-terror-trial/#comment-43099 Kevin: The subjudice laws are quite strong, unless they've changed when I wasn't looking. (Maybe they have changed--I'm no lawyer--in which case bring them back.) If subjudice was committed in this case then all the police and journalists involved are culpable, and let them be charged. Kevin: The subjudice laws are quite strong, unless they’ve changed when I wasn’t looking. (Maybe they have changed — I’m no lawyer — in which case bring them back.) If subjudice was committed in this case then all the police and journalists involved are culpable, and let them be charged.

]]> By: Tom McLoughlin http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/10/27/the-front-page-is-no-place-to-judge-a-terror-trial/#comment-43087 Tom McLoughlin Tue, 27 Oct 2009 05:16:52 +0000 http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/10/27/the-front-page-is-no-place-to-judge-a-terror-trial/#comment-43087 When I heard the ABC radio report I thought, how can such prejudicial, potentialy irrelevant defamation, be publicised so blatantly? Surely there is a possible contempt here to attempt to pressure the courts into pre determining the case? Who really thinks judges are not susceptible to such ferocious publicity? (I know personally from 2 years of paid work that courts in NSW were and probably remain clients of Media Monitors and get sheafs of clippings of what the media are up to about their cases. Who imagines judges aren't aware of this behind the veil of total social and intellectual indepedence? Indeed my ANU jurisprudence lecturer all those years ago quoted various studies of socio economic prejudice inbuilt into the selection of the judiciary. What do the courts do with those clippings? Who gets copied in amongst the judges? No one knows.) That coverage also seems very stupid, such as it could undermine any potential guilty verdict with an appeal? Worse convict the wrong person, no matter how loathesome otherwise, out of prejudice leaving the real terrorist(s) off scot free to do more and worse? And pollute the thinking of a jury to be chosen creating a potential future mistrial and big expense? Is that the real intention of the press? Vigilantes at dawn? And huge taxpayer waste of money? Do they even care? And then when I saw the stupid upbeat ABC tv reporter parroting the well calculated smear - at all times with a gormless smile on her face - on prime time news last night I thought is that a real journalist? Or a puppet parody? The reporter might have at least affected voice neutrality. What on earth was the magistrate thinking releasing sensationalist untested evidence? Might be out of their depth? When I heard the ABC radio report I thought, how can such prejudicial, potentialy irrelevant defamation, be publicised so blatantly? Surely there is a possible contempt here to attempt to pressure the courts into pre determining the case? Who really thinks judges are not susceptible to such ferocious publicity?

(I know personally from 2 years of paid work that courts in NSW were and probably remain clients of Media Monitors and get sheafs of clippings of what the media are up to about their cases. Who imagines judges aren’t aware of this behind the veil of total social and intellectual indepedence? Indeed my ANU jurisprudence lecturer all those years ago quoted various studies of socio economic prejudice inbuilt into the selection of the judiciary. What do the courts do with those clippings? Who gets copied in amongst the judges? No one knows.)

That coverage also seems very stupid, such as it could undermine any potential guilty verdict with an appeal? Worse convict the wrong person, no matter how loathesome otherwise, out of prejudice leaving the real terrorist(s) off scot free to do more and worse? And pollute the thinking of a jury to be chosen creating a potential future mistrial and big expense? Is that the real intention of the press? Vigilantes at dawn? And huge taxpayer waste of money? Do they even care?

And then when I saw the stupid upbeat ABC tv reporter parroting the well calculated smear - at all times with a gormless smile on her face - on prime time news last night I thought is that a real journalist? Or a puppet parody? The reporter might have at least affected voice neutrality.

What on earth was the magistrate thinking releasing sensationalist untested evidence? Might be out of their depth?

]]> By: Kevin Tyerman http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/10/27/the-front-page-is-no-place-to-judge-a-terror-trial/#comment-43084 Kevin Tyerman Tue, 27 Oct 2009 05:10:06 +0000 http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/10/27/the-front-page-is-no-place-to-judge-a-terror-trial/#comment-43084 @ James McDonald, While I agree that the police et al, have much to answer for, are you really saying that no one can have a reasonable expectation to a fair trial in Australian society, simply because "the media are what they are", and should not be regulated? @ James McDonald,
While I agree that the police et al, have much to answer for, are you really saying that no one can have a reasonable expectation to a fair trial in Australian society, simply because “the media are what they are”, and should not be regulated?

]]> By: james mcdonald http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/10/27/the-front-page-is-no-place-to-judge-a-terror-trial/#comment-43016 james mcdonald Tue, 27 Oct 2009 03:22:57 +0000 http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/10/27/the-front-page-is-no-place-to-judge-a-terror-trial/#comment-43016 The media are what they are. Get used to it. This criticism should be aimed at the police for playing the terrorism card in their grasping quest for good ratings. Irresponsible and dangerous. The media are what they are. Get used to it. This criticism should be aimed at the police for playing the terrorism card in their grasping quest for good ratings. Irresponsible and dangerous.

]]>