Like Lawyer X in Vic. I'm sure I can remember who she was. I'm sure a quick search will find her. All the crims that she is ducking for cover from will already know her so I have no idea why the suppression order.
Some suppression orders will be easily circumvented - as LLD suggests Informant 3838 is an example but others will have more effect.
I suspect DDU is referring to today's Herald Sun front page which is complaining it is not allowed to print information which is on the BBC News (and other) website. I'm with the courts on this one.
It is essential accused people are given a fair trial and if potential jurors have spent the six months before a trial being bombarded with media speculation and reporting about what a dastardly person the accused is it *will* prejudice their assessments of the evidence presented. Such media attention is permitted in the USA and so often in that country people have virtually been convicted in the press well before they walked into court.
Humans are very susceptible to suggestion (that's why advertising works) and we need to do the best we can to ensure people who are innocent until *proven* guilty are tried in a fair and just manner by a jury of their peers.
So, yes, one can easily look up what the HS is complaining about but most will not bother and it's unlikely any jury member at this trial will be aware of the matter and/or influenced by it. However keep in mind the slant the HS, Age etc would put on this issue if they were permitted and I have no doubt such reporting would influence some people.
__________________
"I beseech you in the bowels of Christ think it possible you may be mistaken"
Oliver Cromwell, 3rd August 1650 - in a letter to the General Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland
You raise some very good points Mike Harding, it is just unfortunate that this system of protection is very selective at times, in our country at least.
The case about which I was referring has been tried and a conviction I believe has been handed out however I am assuming that the suppression was introduced because of a likely appeal which has been scheduled for February. I do not know wether the appeal involves the severity of the sentence or the conviction itself.
There will be another trial shortly I believe, involving the alleged murder of a wife and mother some thirty odd years ago. At the time it was allegedly reported that she fled her home and family of her own volition.
If this item gets to trial and it is heard in a court with jurors then in the hope of a fair trial, the jurors and for that matter, the judge concerned, have not listened to the podcast, The Teachers Pet, by Hedley Thomas. This podcast has reportedly had millions of downloads.
I am by no means supporting or denying fairness within the justice system in any case before the courts but these two cases just goes to show the hyprocrity in some media suppression orders particularly when the trial of one person has been heard and may be pending an appeal and the other, the accused has only just been arrested.
In any case I hope and trust that the correct decisions are the result regardless of what any individuals view may be.
-- Edited by Dickodownunder on Thursday 13th of December 2018 01:46:51 PM
__________________
"Seek the truth or bury you head in the sand, both require some digging"
Interesting if you try to Google Lawyer X or Informant 3838 you get heaps of articles but no name mentioned. If you key in her name, she is identified at Lawyer X or Informant 3838. She was in the press earlier this week under her real name in her role as a Lawyer.
There are many supression orders current in Aus at the moment.
It is reported that Victoria has 52% of these orders.
The front page headlines in the Herald Sun the yesterday were not referring to Lawyer X but to another very high profile person of international standing.
I see this morning that there is a band of news media representatives that are challenging these decisions.
I guess we will all know how it will go in due course.
As far as media exposure is concerned the accused in the Teachers Pet podcast would not have much of a chance of anonymity but the television media did blurr the accuseds face during a recent news report featuring the arrest.
A tongue in cheek comment might be that due to the podcast only 18 million people know who that accused is.
__________________
"Seek the truth or bury you head in the sand, both require some digging"
