ARREST!!! Australia - Allison Baden-Clay, Brisbane QLD, 19 April 2012 - #21

[Mothergoose]

I understand. I think I didn't want to believe it possible he was guilty, even though privately I knew it seemed likely. It just makes this whole crime even more tragic knowing her husband may well have been responsible and of robbing those girls of their mother, the mother of his children.. horrendous doesn't really even seem to be the word.

Well said !!

 

[Jillie]

Slow down everyone! I'm still back on page 8 and not wanting to miss a single one of your wonderful posts on such a triumphant day! :woohoo:

speed read bellgirl - like the rest of us!! :woohoo:

 

[justice23]

Police confirmed this evening that Baden-Clay had been charged with murder.

He is due to appear in the Brisbane Magistrates Court tomorrow.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/13941229/husband-charged-with-baden-clay-murder/

 

[CJ60]

This is just getting silly. No, we do not have a Bill of Rights. Contempt of Court is about case participants, or about people breaching an order of the Court, which from time to time impacts on media releases.

Australia does in effect have freedom of speech because there are so few limits on comments, apart from such things as the Discrimination Act etc. But what I am simply saying is that some of the legal principles being touted here just do not exist. I am a lawyer with experience in large and high profile criminal and civil cases. I do not like public discussion being unnecessarily curtailed by people who really do not know the law. Just keep discussing the case freely using common sense..which most people in this forum appear to do. There is absolutely nothing to stop me saying that I think the police have got it right.

robynandbessie - just two words for you,

THANK YOU!

 

[Mani]

Subjudice is basically a restriction on what the media can do while a criminal proceeding is under way. It’s a protocol which has evolved to try and limit the pressure that can be put on witnesses in criminal matters who may be influenced or intimidated by what is reported in the press. Courts, witnesses and juries ought to do their jobs based on the evidence put before them, not on the basis of things said outside the court. That’s a fair and reasonable position. Individuals do, of course, talk about criminal matters and that’s fair and reasonable too. People are entitled to form opinions and to express them. A balance has to be struck between these two competing interests. Generally the courts have done an excellent job at striking that balance. Those most affected by the subjudice protocols are journalists and the publishers they work for. That makes perfect sense given that the role of the media is to distribute information and opinion in a much wider and, usually, commercial context.

There has been some predictable debate and uncertainty in recent years about how the subjudice protocols should apply to internet based media, both commercial and informal. As far as I know, internet fora such as this one have yet to fall afoul of the common law subjudice rules in Australia. And in my personal opinion only, we are unlikely to see them become so liable unless it can be established that there is some deliberate agenda on behalf of forum owners and operators to deliberately influence a trial or witness.

As for individual forum contributors, in my personal view only, I wouldn’t worry about the coppers knocking on your door and threatening you with a subjudice contempt charge. The rules are aimed squarely at the publishers. That doesn’t mean that you should just ignore the whole issue of potentially influencing a trial unfairly of course.

We want people to be convicted on the basis of admissible evidence, not largely uninformed personal opinion. We don’t want to live in a community where people get off on threatening those charged with offences or by screaming for blood. 99% of people understand that though. And jurors are people like you and me. We aint morons. When a judge tells us to come to a decision based on the evidence we hear in the court we know that’s important and we are decent enough to do that.

If journalists think your deliberations and sharing with each other on this forum is primarily a vehicle for them to study you then that’s a bit sad given that most posters seem to be here to empathise with Allison and her family. But don’t be told what to think and feel with vague threats about subjudice.

Defamation. Most lawyers I know dread the client who comes in wanting to sue someone for defamation. They almost always underestimate the time, resources and money that go into getting a defamation matter in to court and significantly overestimate how much they will get in damages. That’s not to say that you can’t be sued for harming someone’s reputation by what you say on the net, but common sense will usually help you decide what’s appropriate and what isn’t.

All this is just IMO and MOO. If you think you are at some legal risk then go see a lawyer, don’t base your understanding of the law on stuff you see written by anonymous posters on the net. But by the same token don’t be bullied or scared into thinking your feelings and beliefs are not valid or welcome. We are all human being and humans are full of passion. Sometimes that passion makes us do awful things (like kill people) and sometimes it makes us do beautiful things (like put flowers on a bridge).

Thank you Hawkins

 

[Agent_99]

Great coverage on both 7 and 9 news with some interesting new facts, but why, for the love of ..., did Channel 9 replay the granny-pash not just once, but twice!

Watching IT made me laugh out loud not once, but twice!
Was almost as if the news channels showed it in such a way as to make a mockery out of the pair of them & 'their' moment!

 

[Lurker on Websleuths]

This can' t be all there is to it , now can it ? 2 cars were seen in the vicinity of Anstead that night >>> must be some other nervous party sitting out there waiting for the knock at the door.

 

[justice23]

Scout movement founder Lord Baden-Powell's great grandson charged with murdering his wife

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...charged-murdering-wife.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

 

[Keentoknow]

The alleged murderer should have thought of these girls before he allegedly killed Allison.

So true...The cross is at the bridge laden with sunflowers.

Can I ask a favour...please call at the bridge tomorrow and see if the cross is tight enough....It got a little dark before we finished it.

Could not get a good pic of Allisons cross as the sun had set before we got it up.
Just as we parked at the bridge we heard a news flash.....Thank you Supt Det Mark Ainsworth.

 

[Jillie]

This can' t be all there is to it , now can it ? 2 cars were seen in the vicinity of Anstead that night >>> must be some other nervous party sitting out there waiting for the knock at the door.

prolly already packing their soap-on-a-rope....:what:

 

[Mani]

This is just getting silly. No, we do not have a Bill of Rights. Contempt of Court is about case participants, or about people breaching an order of the Court, which from time to time impacts on media releases.

Australia does in effect have freedom of speech because there are so few limits on comments, apart from such things as the Discrimination Act etc. But what I am simply saying is that some of the legal principles being touted here just do not exist. I am a lawyer with experience in large and high profile criminal and civil cases. I do not like public discussion being unnecessarily curtailed by people who really do not know the law. Just keep discussing the case freely using common sense..which most people in this forum appear to do. There is absolutely nothing to stop me saying that I think the police have got it right.

Thank you for your incisive opinion. Cheers

 

[Newbie1]

Thanks again Hawkins. I would suggest that the posters offering backyard legal advice read Hawkins post! Verified professional-no further comment needed!

 

[Strangeworld]

Scout movement founder Lord Baden-Powell's great grandson charged with murdering his wife

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...charged-murdering-wife.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

I think this will be the first of many headlines - there goes the family name!

 

[sanctuary]

Living just a stones throw from where Allison was found we are relieved that an ending is in sight. Allisons story has touched many in this community and we hope that justice is served and that Allison can rest in peace. Thoughts are with thoe 3 little girls tonight *advertiser censored*

 

[Strangeworld]

This can' t be all there is to it , now can it ? 2 cars were seen in the vicinity of Anstead that night >>> must be some other nervous party sitting out there waiting for the knock at the door.

Or maybe the 'claims' made on Tully's blog were part truth, and someone has flipped on GBC. Anyone smell a deal in the wind?

 

[Watsonian Institute]

Subjudice is basically a restriction on what the media can do while a criminal proceeding is under way. It’s a protocol which has evolved to try and limit the pressure that can be put on witnesses in criminal matters who may be influenced or intimidated by what is reported in the press. Courts, witnesses and juries ought to do their jobs based on the evidence put before them, not on the basis of things said outside the court. That’s a fair and reasonable position. Individuals do, of course, talk about criminal matters and that’s fair and reasonable too. People are entitled to form opinions and to express them. A balance has to be struck between these two competing interests. Generally the courts have done an excellent job at striking that balance. Those most affected by the subjudice protocols are journalists and the publishers they work for. That makes perfect sense given that the role of the media is to distribute information and opinion in a much wider and, usually, commercial context.

There has been some predictable debate and uncertainty in recent years about how the subjudice protocols should apply to internet based media, both commercial and informal. As far as I know, internet fora such as this one have yet to fall afoul of the common law subjudice rules in Australia. And in my personal opinion only, we are unlikely to see them become so liable unless it can be established that there is some deliberate agenda on behalf of forum owners and operators to deliberately influence a trial or witness.

As for individual forum contributors, in my personal view only, I wouldn’t worry about the coppers knocking on your door and threatening you with a subjudice contempt charge. The rules are aimed squarely at the publishers. That doesn’t mean that you should just ignore the whole issue of potentially influencing a trial unfairly of course.

We want people to be convicted on the basis of admissible evidence, not largely uninformed personal opinion. We don’t want to live in a community where people get off on threatening those charged with offences or by screaming for blood. 99% of people understand that though. And jurors are people like you and me. We aint morons. When a judge tells us to come to a decision based on the evidence we hear in the court we know that’s important and we are decent enough to do that.

If journalists think your deliberations and sharing with each other on this forum is primarily a vehicle for them to study you then that’s a bit sad given that most posters seem to be here to empathise with Allison and her family. But don’t be told what to think and feel with vague threats about subjudice.

Defamation. Most lawyers I know dread the client who comes in wanting to sue someone for defamation. They almost always underestimate the time, resources and money that go into getting a defamation matter in to court and significantly overestimate how much they will get in damages. That’s not to say that you can’t be sued for harming someone’s reputation by what you say on the net, but common sense will usually help you decide what’s appropriate and what isn’t.

All this is just IMO and MOO. If you think you are at some legal risk then go see a lawyer, don’t base your understanding of the law on stuff you see written by anonymous posters on the net. But by the same token don’t be bullied or scared into thinking your feelings and beliefs are not valid or welcome. We are all human being and humans are full of passion. Sometimes that passion makes us do awful things (like kill people) and sometimes it makes us do beautiful things (like put flowers on a bridge).

As you know, sub judice doesn't only cover journalists. It covers anyone who publishes. This is not my opinion; this is fact. I believe it is irresponsible to advise otherwise.

 

[willough]

(joking) If only sunflowers had a scent.....We could have sent him sunflower scented soap to enjoy in prison.... :blushing:

 

[CJ60]

So true...The cross is at the bridge laden with sunflowers.

Can I ask a favour...please call at the bridge tomorrow and see if the cross is tight enough....It got a little dark before we finished it.

Could not get a good pic of Allisons cross as the sun had set before we got it up.
Just as we parked at the bridge we heard a news flash.....Thank you Supt Det Mark Ainsworth.

It was almost dark when I drove past tonight....I saw it on the right hand side as I came in from Brisbane. What a beautiful gesture....
RIP Allison.

 

[DunnoZo]

keentoknow, & CJ, thank you, I commend you both for simply having such beautiful intentions. Your timing was impeccable

 

[ollijack]

prolly already packing their soap-on-a-rope....:what:

Oh, Jillie....Im not usually this easily affected by one glass of wine...but that has buggered me for the night.....lol.....:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh: