Australia is a Federation of six states and several territories. The Commonwealth of Australia, by that I mean all of us, are subject to federal law and then there is the separate law laid down by each of the states and territories which impacts on the residents of those states and territories as well as on the rest of us when we happen to be passing through.
Actually this is dangerous territory (no pun intended) for me as I have no legal training whatsoever so perhaps I should cease this legal comment here and leave the topic for experts like Marcellous.
So why have I raised it? Well I have just spent the weekend in the state of Queensland and whilst there I have viewed news bulletins on the aftermath of a terrible fire in a nursing home in my home state of New South Wales (NSW). A number of residents in that home have lost their life following the fire. A man has been charged in connection with that fire and the news reports in Queensland not only name that man but show uncensored photos and moving images of him and even interviews he conducted with the media before the Police commenced their investigation.
This evening I returned home (NSW) and the news reports here have the accused man's features pixelated. I know, or perhaps I should say I understand, the reason for this is to help ensure any legal proceedings are not contaminated especially should any parties to a trial (witnesses and jury members?) form opinions or in the case of witnesses present recollections that knowingly or subliminally are affected by these public reports.
I'm a NSW resident and so could always be summoned to appear in a jury sometime. I'm not volunteering mind you. So what protects the fairness of the proceedings if I were to called to jury duty in that matter? Perhaps potential jurors are questioned as to their foreknowledge or opinions about the matter in question? Perhaps I would be excused (or is that recused?) because I happened to view television reports in another state. I don't know. But, to restate, I'm not volunteering anyway.
What about cases that arise in the border areas between states? Residents there often have access to the same television networks from both of the adjoining states and would see the same reports uncensored from one side of the border and censored from the other side.
Of course, potentially undermining it all is the internet. Anyone with even moderate computing skills can research issues from many sources whether they be local or (for want of a better term) foreign. Come to think of it I remember now that cases have recently been aborted or jurors excused/recused(?) after it became known they researched the internet for information about an issue in which they had been sitting in judgement.
It's all a bit difficult isn't it?
I was in Sydney when the news broke and the TV networks were terribly inconsistent as to whether or not the guy's image was pixellated AFTER his arrest. Even within TV networks, footage switched from pixellated to non-pixellated depending on the program and day. I wonder if this was because my hotel room had pay TV networks?
ReplyDeleteYour Telegraph certainly had his uncovered face online. The law is miles behind this matter. I 'think' the law in Victoria did not cover other states and so photos of accused could be published elsewhere in Australia but in internet days, this is quite silly. South Australian courts make a lot of use of orders that a court case can't be reported. Maybe that is an attempt to deal with the matter in an indirect manner.
ReplyDeleteVictor
ReplyDeleteYou might also be amused by the following portion of this report of the verdict against a mother as an accessory after the fact to a murder by her son:
"During the trial, the court heard that, in 2008, a romantic relationship developed between Mr Saemin and Mrs Iskandar, who were colleagues at the Malaysian consulate in Sydney.
The relationship soon became a talking point within Sydney's Indonesian community and the Crown alleged that, on becoming aware of the affair, Andrew Iskandar and his father began planning Mr Saemin's murder to protect family honour.
His father, Mrs Iskandar's husband, is yet to face trial and cannot be named."
There must be some sort of court order, but it is hard to see what it will achieve.