Niall, I am inclined to cringe at media commentary on court proceedings, because it is very easy to throw stones at particular aspects of a trial and ignore many other important parts. It is highly unlikely that Sheehan was present for any of the hearing, or even that a SMHerald reporter was there for all of it. As Clare points out, he does not mind giving the judiciary a general serve - including mentioning vague and unconnected incidents rich in inference to homosexual (and possibly underage) sex. So there is evidence for Sheehan starting with a bias in outlook.
I would go further to say that his introduction of the newly-re-traumatised victim as evidence is gratuitous. Yes the system should be compassionate to victims. But it also must be dispassionate in ruling on the law.
However, to his credit he seems to have read the judgement. How thoroughly is hard to tell.
But if even some of what he said is true then it is very worrying. It will make it much harder to convict people for serious crimes. This will dissuade some victims from proceeding. And ultimately mean a higher price for justice - or more likely, that for example the DPP office which is already under-resourced will contribute to ever greater delays in the legal system, and result in more cases being dropped.
It is difficult to believe that the judges could not see the implications of their judgement, but I suppose they are required to put that out of their minds. Perhaps the crown case was handled poorly. I am incredulous at the gaping chasm between law and justice.
This is not so much a new phenomenon, however. We are accustomed to corporate criminals using their vast financial resources to defeat and delay almost every avenue of justice. We have come to expect that prison will only house certain social classes, with very rare exceptions like Bond, Hanson and eventually Rivkin. What is new here, is that a common, young, violent (alleged) criminal obviously has access to a very expensive defence.
Our system gives every accused the right to the best defence. If this means that those who have the means can "buy" the outcome they want, then it is probably time to re-draw the system before it becomes total anarchy. But this will not be a priority even for forward-thinking lawyers, who have too much at stake.
As a whole community I suspect we have been prepared to live with corporate criminals who escaped justice, and not put enough pressure for reform onto governments - who are always reluctant to jail the rich and famous. Now perhaps that is coming home to roost.
Niall, I share your fear ... but probably cynicism instead of confusion.
Kind regards, Lindsay Brash.
At 09:27 AM 8/03/04 +1000, Niall McKay wrote:
I read this article about a recent retrial of a rape case with confusion and fear (but I am not sure what I am confused and scared about)
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/07/1078594233863.html
Perhaps someone who knows a bit more about law than I do can offer some thoughts -
this guys rant is a little one-sided. (or is it?)
------------------------------------------------------ - You are subscribed to the mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the message body 'unsubscribe insights-l' (ell, not one (1)) See: http://nsw.uca.org.au/insights-l-information.htm ------------------------------------------------------
