Superhero Diaries

The Death Of The Fair Trial?

Like most Australians, I was shocked to hear that someone had been arrested over the disappearance of Daniel Morecombe. And like most I was actually happy to hear of a possible sense of closure, not only for his poor parents, but for the community at large. This has been a case that has touched so many of us.

But since the arrest something almost as disturbing has emerged. In our eagerness for justice we’ve seemingly forgotten some of the basic tenants of our society.

Namely that, in Australia, we operate under a presumption of innocence: everyone is entitled to a fair trial free from prejudice.

Yet without any research at all I can tell you an amazing number of facts about this individual. He’s 41 years old. He’s a father of three. He was living in Western Australia. He has previous convictions. He testified as P7. We’ve probably got enough information to discover his identity if you went looking.

But if that wasn’t bad enough, the front page of this morning’s Courier Mail features a giant artist’s impression of the man in question. Yes, they’ve blurred his eyes out (blurring on an artist’s impression is bizarre) but it gives you a reasonable idea of what he looks like.

Will it be possible for this man to get a fair trial?

The law of subjudice exists to prevent people from pre-judging accused people. The media are legally prevented from printing any evidence prior to a trial that may be read by a potential juror (which is most of the general public).

Well, they’re supposedly prevented. The truth is that this law has become largely self-regulated. In an age where technology and immediacy combine with a business model that emphasises ratings/readership and the temptation to give the punters what they want sometimes just gets too much for some organisations.

And it’s not just the media incidentally. The Queensland Police Service should be commended for the dedication to duty – and in this case in particular – but their failure to shut off comments on their facebook page flies in the face of subjudice laws and borders on encouraging a mob mentality.

Social media has indeed made it increasingly difficult to not only keep a lid on identity and evidence but also has a tendency to repeat exaggerated and often incorrect information.

It’s hard to see how the law can address that adequately and if the general public can’t be restrained then should we expect the same of journalists, who at least should know to check facts and tread carefully?

Emotive cases amplify a desire for justice but it can border on a thirst for blood that clouds judgment.

I truly hope this guy did it. Not just for the sense of closure but because the internet is feeling like a lynch mob at the moment and it’s hard to see anything but a guilty finding regardless of facts.  I want justice to be served and for it done fairly.

I want Daniel Morecombe’s abductor/killer to rot in jail and then in hell. Whoever they may be.

But the law says this might not be the guy. Innocent until proven guilty.

• < Prev
• Next >