A.F.L. Thread II

[benchmark00]

Apparently it was on the ABC's iView, but has expired now

Google not helping either.

I know a website which could help you out, if you're that way inclined...

 

[Matt79]

This isn't going to lead to a Rick Astley video clip is it?

 

[benchmark00]

This isn't going to lead to a Rick Astley video clip is it?

If only.

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

Here.

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

Wait a minute...

 

[Matt79]

Thanks SBI - that last minute goal is amazing. Everyone should check it out!

 

[Jono]

Why SBI, why on Earth would you do that?

 

[Jono]

Eddie McGuire lashes Neil Mitchell for naming Collingwood players

 

[Matt79]

Mitchell such a ****.

 

[benchmark00]

Reporting the facts as far as I can tell.

 

[howardj]

I don't really like Neil Mitchell, but what I dislike more is this big cone of secrecy that has to apply to these incidents, and the idea that the public is not intelligent enough to make the distinction between a guy being questioned in relation to an incident, and a guy being charged/convicted of an offence.

 

[Jono]

It's the classic debate of contempt of court, and how much faith do we put on the ability for jury members to separate allegations in the media from the facts in court.

No different to the Underbelly injunction really.

 

[vic_orthdox]

So Jono/other legal eagles, if these guys were playing for Chelsea Heights FC, and it received one article in the paper, then would their names have been released?

 

[Jono]

Howard and Benchy are probably more knowledgeable than myself, perhaps SBI too (**** we have a few legal nerds in this AFL thread), but I'm studying media law right now, so I may be able to answer this.

Much of the question is based on what is called 'sub judice', i.e. publication of material that is prejudicial while a trial is going on, or that will interfere with administration of justice in those proceedings.

There are no proceedings as of yet, and so, providing the source of the journalists was reputable, they could name who is being investigated, even if only with the disclaimer of 'alleged'.

But any imputation of guilt would have them open to defamatory litigation, or be in contempt of court, for sure.

Would depend also if the court ordered their names to be suppressed. Australian courts have a massive 'suppression' culture.

 

[Matt79]

Don't really give a **** about the legalities of it. Just think it's massively unfair to the two players to be publicly named and shamed - inc. front page pictures that take up the full page with a "Named" stamped on their face on this arvos Mx - when at this stage there are simply allegations that we have no idea whether the police are treating seriously or not. If those guys are guilty they'll hopefully get what they deserve, but if they're innocent they've been irreparably damaged in terms of their reputation. As I said, Mitchell is a ****. Hangin out with Derryn Hinch too much. Of course the fact that Eddie is his direct competitor would not have made any difference to his decision to take the cheap shot either.

 

[Redbacks]

I don't really like Neil Mitchell, but what I dislike more is this big cone of secrecy that has to apply to these incidents, and the idea that the public is not intelligent enough to make the distinction between a guy being questioned in relation to an incident, and a guy being charged/convicted of an offence.

But now we have a potential juror who heard from a friend via x from y from z etc. that the person in question was a player with the ladies, or that they had seen them in a fight with an ex etc. It just seems best that we cut out this potential influence on the case. Another reason would involve the accused now facing punishment as will their families and friends etc. with no possibility of recouping this hurt in the event they are innocent.

What public benefit has been served by releasing names? The: innocent team mates are now off the hook seems a weak justification to me.

 

[howardj]

Naming a person, of itself, doesn't harm the chances of a fair trial. Howver, putting someone's mug on the front of the paper under the headline of 'brutal *** assault' and then detailing the crime and any criminal history, would be a different story.

I did my thesis, back in 2000, on pretrial publicity. From what I can recall, nobody in Australia has ever got out of facing a trial because of adverse pretrial publicity. The bar is extremely high. (Even Doctor Death here in Qld recently, Jayant Patel, couldn't get out of a trial despite the shocking time he copped in the media) Mitigating steps that can be taken if there's been massive adverse publicity include stern instructions from the presiding judge or, in the most extreme cases, a panel of three or so judges instead of a jury (very rare).

I realise there is a another question here as to whether it's fair/ethical (as distinct from legal or prejudicial) to name someone who is just being questioned. I'm not a journo, so I wouldn't really know. But don't we see it all the time on the news that 'so and so is being questioned by police' or 'so and so is a person of interest'. People who are being questioned are named all the time on the news, aren't they?

 

[Matt79]

Normally at preliminary stages it's limited to "a Mentone man is assisting police with their enquiries" or similar. And allegations of ***ual assault carry a particularly nasty stigma.

Redbacks got at what I was trying to say. There was no public good achieved by releasing the names. It hasn't helped achieve justice for the victim, or help establish whether the allegations are true. It hasn't made the community safer or corrected some previous wrong. It was done for titilation purposes only. But hey, if 3AW want to use the "it's easily accessible on the internet" excuse for lowering their standards, I'll wait for further outcry when they start depicting acts of violent ***ual abuse on their program - because that's easily accessible online as well.

 

[benchmark00]

Howard and Benchy are probably more knowledgeable than myself, perhaps SBI too (**** we have a few legal nerds in this AFL thread), but I'm studying media law right now, so I may be able to answer this.

Much of the question is based on what is called 'sub judice', i.e. publication of material that is prejudicial while a trial is going on, or that will interfere with administration of justice in those proceedings.

There are no proceedings as of yet, and so, providing the source of the journalists was reputable, they could name who is being investigated, even if only with the disclaimer of 'alleged'.

But any imputation of guilt would have them open to defamatory litigation, or be in contempt of court, for sure.

Would depend also if the court ordered their names to be suppressed. Australian courts have a massive 'suppression' culture.

Naming a person, of itself, doesn't harm the chances of a fair trial. Howver, putting someone's mug on the front of the paper under the headline of 'brutal *** assault' and then detailing the crime and any criminal history, would be a different story.

I did my thesis, back in 2000, on pretrial publicity. From what I can recall, nobody in Australia has ever got out of facing a trial because of adverse pretrial publicity. The bar is extremely high. (Even Doctor Death here in Qld recently, Jayant Patel, couldn't get out of a trial despite the shocking time he copped in the media) Mitigating steps that can be taken if there's been massive adverse publicity include stern instructions from the presiding judge or, in the most extreme cases, a panel of three or so judges instead of a jury (very rare).

I realise there is a another question here as to whether it's fair/ethical (as distinct from legal or prejudicial) to name someone who is just being questioned. I'm not a journo, so I wouldn't really know. But don't we see it all the time on the news that 'so and so is being questioned by police' or 'so and so is a person of interest'. People who are being questioned are named all the time on the news, aren't they?

Yep, these two ****s have said the truth.

 

[howardj]

I think the AFL has gone a bit too far with the concessions for the Suns.

What with an extra $1 million in the salary cap for this year, $800 000 for next year, picks one, two, three, five seven, nine, 11, 13 and 15 as well as the first pick in every subsequent round in this year's draft, and signed players including:

- Ablett
- Rischitelli
- Brennan
- Harbrow
- Fraser
- Bock
- Krakouer.

How much is enough?