What a shocking story this is. It's incredible both these young women survived when it's patently obvious that it was his intention to dispose of both of them.
I've been trying to find reasons for the secrecy surrounding this trial, particularly the fact that the defendant's name has still not been mentioned despite the trial having commenced. I've now learned that when it comes to sexual assault trials, its not uncommon for a defendant to have his name suppressed.
In Queensland, the Crimes (Sexual Offences) Act 1978 protects those charged with a sexual offence from having their details published until they are committed for trial or sentence; in other words, until their cases get past the local court stage and are referred to a higher court for trial or they are found guilty. It is an offence, punishable by a fine of up to $11,780 or two years imprisonment, for anyone to publish their name, address, school, place of employment or other information that could lead to their identification.
Northern Territory and South Australian legislation similarly offers limited protections to defendants against premature publication of their identity in sexual assault trials.
Like South Australia, Victorian courts have been accused of fostering a suppression order culture. In order to reduce the high number of suppression orders, Victoria has introduced new legislation that automatically suppresses information in particular matters such as sex offence cases.
In broad terms Australia enjoys an open court system which benefits from the principle that justice is not only done, but seen to be done by the public, usually via the media. This is where the dilemma for the courts comes into play. Journalists might say name suppression is a nightmare, that its in the publics interest for an accused to be named and shamed. However, for the accused, who is innocent until proven guilty, the publishing of their name could impact their right to a fair trial by an impartial jury.
The courts have an obligation to protect the integrity of criminal trials by ensuring that other interests do not overshadow the defendants right to be tried by an impartial jury. However, the line between open justice and fair trial has been blurred by the advent of the internet. This is one of the reasons why it is mandatory that juries are routinely directed by judges to decide upon a case using only the evidence presented to them.
eace: