#auspol #auslaw #ausmedia #Thomson #HSU @2GB873 @FrancieJones

The following article was brought to my attention, which I will reproduce for you below. It is about the Circus hounding the Thomson matter. Before I start my paragraphs I make the following disclaimer:

1. I do not know Craig Thomson personally nor anybody associated with him, his family or friends,
2. I am not a member of any Political Party,
3. I have no vested interests in the outcome of the Thomson Matter,
4. I make no judgement whatsoever of Craig Thomson's Innocence or Guilt other than what the Law states, and that is Thomson is innocent until proven guilty.
5. I do not like the radio station 2GB due to the personalities they have as announcers that is Alan Jones and Ray Hadley in particular. I believe these men are just pure bullies with no respect for the Rule of Law, or our legal system in Australia, and in fact they have shown contempt for our Legal System in the past on their given public platform.

Now having got all that out of the way I reproduce for you the article :-

http://www.2gb.com/article/craig-thomson-court-process-explained

The first thing I would like to point out is the hypocrisy of 2GB and Ray Hadley's in particular. Hadley always goes on about cowards who don't put their name to articles and posts online. I note the above article subject of my paragraphs have had the author's name left out. Not even a handle for Twitter, Facebook or Blog.

If the person who wrote that article is actually in fact a lawyer from Victoria, ( which I highly doubt as I suspect no Officer of the Court could be so stupid as to breach the sub judice rule) they put themselves in harm's way. By that I mean they open themselves up to sanctions from the Court hearing Thomson's matter, also the Supreme Court of Victoria for breaching the sub judice rule, as well the regulatory provisions of behaviour and conduct all Officers of the Court must conduct themselves by. I suspect Mr Thomson's Legal Representatives will make a formal Complaint about that article to the relevant authorities in Victoria for investigation.

Now to the details of the article itself. The anonymous author of the article suggests he is only trying to explain the Court processes in Victoria. In reality what he is doing is the usual "dog whistling" or what Former Justice Brian Sully of the NSW Supreme Court described the media as doing, “finely calibrated half-truths;.... they fuse fact and opinion." This article is a prime example of what Former Justice Sully described in his farewell oration.

The author steps up to the plate as a supposed Knight in shining armour wanting to do the right thing by explaining to the community how the Court process works, which all very noble of him or her. However then the author states,

" Firstly, there is no expectation by either the police or the accused that a witness list will be handed over to the accused by the police at a Filing Hearing. Mr. Thomson's crticism [sic] of the police on this point is a complete and utterly disgraceful comment. It is ill-informed and misleading. It should be denounced, hence my emailing you.

Secondly, if Mr. Thomson did not come to Victoria to be interviewed as was requested, the two options were to summons him to attend or arrest him. It is he who botch the arrest up in my view, not the police. Mr. Thompson would have been better advised to come to Victoria to be interviewed voluntarily (even if he made a no comment record of interview) than leave open the ability of police to compel his attendance through his arrest and bail. Again, Mr. Thomson's representations to the public are misleading."

Well all I can say is WOW where to begin. So immediately the author puts himself in Craig Thomson's and many other accused peoples shoes and implies that Thomson or any other accused does not "expect" a witness list to be handed over at filing. The author of the article is amazing they have super human powers namely mind reading. Not just mind reading but the ability to read the minds of thousands of accused all at once.

So the implication is that Thomson was never expecting a Witness List and he lied in a dishonest manner to the Media. Wow just incredible, this is the first clue that the author is not really a Legal Practitioner, because no right minded Legal Practitioner could be so stupid to make such a remarkable statement like that.

I won't go into what an Accused person may or may not expect or their expectations at first appearance in court. That would vary from matter to matter and from individual to individual.

What is truly, " a complete and utterly disgraceful comment.." which is "ill-informed and misleading..." and "should be denounced." is that entire article.
Then if possible the author gets worse, that is even more stupid in his or her second paragraph which I have reproduced above.

I mean is the author fully aware of the facts or WHAT actually transpired in order to make those assumptions and come to their conclusion in that paragraph? Really were they witness to the police making a request to Thomson to come for an interview? What was said? How did it transpire? What was Thomson's Legal Advice?

I could turn this into a thesis on Stupidity but I won't. Suffice it to say, in this great land of ours, our Legal System gives EVERYBODY, the Common Law Right to silence on most occasions. The reasons or rationale behind that can be obtained from reading many High Court Cases relative to that issue. In short it is a protection for the individual from the extensive powers and resources of the State which heavily outweighs those of most individuals in Australia, and their ability to muster.

There is a very real difference when a Police Officer states, "I would like you to come in for an interview." and "I would like for you to come in for an interview and if you don't I won't have any other option but to swear out a warrant for your arrest."

Now I won't make any assumptions or speculate as to what was said, because I am not a witness and dare I say neither was the author of the article. If it was for interview purposes only Thomson like everybody else in the community had the right to refuse under legal advice, and dare I say in most cases 99% of competent Legal Practitioners would advise their clients to refuse to participate in an interview and exercise their common law right to silence. Again that can and does change on a case to case basis for good reason.

However, if the Police stated "if you don't come in then we will have no other option but to swear out an arrest warrant." Then most competent Legal Practitioners would advise their client to attend the police station and exercise their common law right to silence there.

They would anticipate that the Police have a prima facie case and charges will be forth coming in any event whether or not the accused does participate in an interview. Now not knowing what was said exactly how can Mr or Ms Stupid Legal practitioner (tongue in cheek because again this is the second clue as to the fact that it could not possibly have been a legal practitioner that wrote this article, and I reiterate no legal practitioner could be this stupid) suggest, " Again, Mr. Thomson's representations to the public are misleading." ??

My mind is blown away by the stupidity.
Well dear readers and friends I could go on and on about the stupidity of the article. The above article should actually be a Case Study in Law School on what NOT to write about a matter that is before the courts but I just don't have the time to analyse the rest.

The author makes remarks about Committal Hearings the purpose there of and what Thomson could or could not have done what he should and should not have done etc etc. In short unless the author has a deep and intimate knowledge of the facts the entire article is just an attack on Thomson personally and should be seen as such.

The article if truly written by a Legal Practitioner they should have their practising certificate cancelled purely for stupidity if nothing else. If you have any specific questions by all means post to me and I will try and answer your questions and clarify why I believe it could not have been a Legal Practitioner who wrote that article and why it is purely motivated in attacking an accused person who's matter is before the Courts. Again, I make no judgement on Thomson's innocence or guilt, but until proven guilty he is recognised and ought to be recognised as an innocent person.

I remind Mr or Mrs Stupid Legal Practitioner the words of the Famous Lord Sankey in Woolmington v DPP,

"Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt.....If, at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt,...... the prosecution has not made out the case and the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal. No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained."

I am blown away at the stupidity of that article still, I cannot get over it.

Reply · Report Post