Re: Glenbrook accident [NSW] (Media behaviour comment)

[royboy@DELETE_THIS.bit.net.au (Roy Wilke)]

On Tue, 7 Dec 1999 00:11:23 +1100, "Rod" <comtrain@mpx.com.au> wrote:

(snippety)

>I don't know if it is peculiarly Victorian thing, but for some many  months
>now all news footage of people attending Court charged with serious crimes,
>drugs, murder etc are scrambled so that the person cannot be recognised
>............funny world we live in, when a Crim. gets better protection than
>a bloke just doing his job?
>Rod

It has to do with sub-judice laws. Although a person is charged with
an offence - any offence - they are *not* guilty of that offence while
the court case is in progress. It is against the law to publically
identify a person who is before the courts and facing a charge - it
would prejudice the case and cause the trial to be abandoned.

But once the case has been heard, the jury have made their decision
and the judge has either passed sentence or instructed that the
defendant be released, then the media is allowed to identify the (now
former) defendant.

Remember - no-one is a Criminal until they have been tried, convicted
and sentenced in a court of law. 

Or would you prefer that the media identify the accused anyway, and
cause the trial to be abandoned? That *has* happened - a noted case
not too long ago was when John Laws caused a trial (I think it was a
murder trial, too) to be abandoned because Laws decided to ignore the
sub-judice rules and name the defendant.

On the Glenbrook driver issue, there have been no criminal charges
laid against the driver, the guard, the signalman or the station staff
at Glenbrook. Sub-judice laws do not prevent any media organisation
from identifying any of the railway staff involved. As for the
driver's name and address, that is all public domain information which
is available to anyone who chooses to look in a telephone book or at
an electoral roll. The SMH articles (or those that appeared on the
Web) didn't attempt to apportion any blame to the driver or anyone
else - the only public area where I have seen any apportionment of
blame published (and much of that has been based on pure speculation
and hearsay) has been here on USENET.

So, it is fine to criticise the newspaper, radio and television
reportage of rail-related accidents here, but remember that to do so
here is not a conversation in private, but a written publication which
could greatly detract from someone's reputation and (possibly) their
right to a fair and just hearing in a court or tribunal. And what you
may type into your computer and post to USENET might see you facing
charges or cause justice to be abandoned because you have prejudiced a
trial.