|
Oz judge demands info purged from web before trial
| Cos jurors need less info, not more, to make an informed decision. This has major ramifications for terror trials, if the "international community" decides that, f'rinstance, the Rantburg archives might reflect negatively on those poor misunderstood freedom fighters... |
A(n Australian) Supreme Court judge has called for the internet to be purged of any material likely to prejudice a trial, to prevent jurors conducting their own investigations into cases they are sitting on.
| Purge the internet. Yeah. That'll work. |
Justice Virginia Bell, of the NSW Supreme Court, told a conference in Darwin of Supreme and Federal court judges from across the country yesterday that the ready availability of archived press reports on the internet could jeopardise the trial of an accused person. Justice Bell recommended that to prevent jurors from researching cases online, Crown prosecutors in any pending case should "carry out searches on the internet and, in the event that prejudicial material is identified . . . request any Australian-based website to remove it until the trial is completed". She said prejudicial material relating to the trial of a prominent business identity had been removed from the website Crikey.com.au at the request of the NSW Supreme Court's public information officer.
| And the information, of course, existed only on crikey.com.au, nowhere else in the entire world... |
Justice Bell said publication of material that had a real and definite tendency to prejudice a trial amounted to contempt of court. "The difficulty arises with material published on the internet by individuals and interest groups who may be difficult to trace or, in widely publicised cases, by the publication of prejudicial material on the internet by persons outside the jurisdiction."
| She means where her jurisdiction doesn't extend. I'm trying to figure how it came to extend to the internet based in Australia. As far as I know, there's no one "in charge" of the internet. Or have they changed that? |
A NSW study which examined 41 trials held between 1997 and 2000 found that in three cases jurors admitted to having carried out internet searches despite being instructed not to by judges.
| If the jurors did it when the judge said not to do it, then it should be on the jurors' heads, not those of the entire worldwide web... |
Queensland and NSW have introduced legislation making it an offence for jurors to conduct investigations on the internet, punishable by a maximum of two years' jail.
| ... a reasonable response. Draco would yawn. |
Justice Bell said the potential for the internet to threaten the integrity of jury trials was highlighted by the promotion of CrimeNet, a national police site which published criminal histories. After concerns were raised about CrimeNet, the site was modified so anyone searching its criminal records database must now open an account and furnish credit card details. A subscriber must agree "not to search for details of any person whilst I am a juror in a trial of that person, in a jurisdiction that prohibits such information". But her call was branded "silly and unworkable" by the media union, while the internet industry said it would be impossible to police offshore sites. Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance federal secretary Christopher Warren said it was an attempt at censorship which highlighted a "disturbing trend" in judges' decisions. "It's silly and it's unworkable, we've already seen in the Gutnick case how dangerous that can be for Australia," Mr Warren said. The 2002 Gutnick v Dow Jones case in the High Court established that, in law, internet articles are published where they are read. Courts could already compel Australian ISPs to remove material from websites in Australia, Peter Coroneos, chief executive of the Internet Industry Association said. "The problem is much more difficult if someone puts up a website in Argentina," Mr Coroneos said.
Posted by: Seafarious 2005-01-31 |
