Adrianna
Member
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2014
- Messages
- 588
- Reaction score
- 18
Perhaps the media were more interested in another case this week.....
Yeah but i am not sure they would be allowed to report on that case either.
Perhaps the media were more interested in another case this week.....
I agree it's strange that there has been nothing in the media at all today. I would have expected at least the outcome to have been reported. That suggests that the media have backed off for whatever reason.
Something can only be defamatory if it affects your reputation (putting it very simply), so the mere reporting that he was in court today and his matter has been adjourned, would not be defamatory.
There aren't any suppression orders in place either. Even if there was, the media would have reported that "a xx year old man appeared in Campbelltown court today" in the knowledge that most people would know who it is.
My own view is that either:
A. BS has, through a lawyer, put the media on notice of a lawsuit if he is acquitted, and the media, knowing it has overstepped the mark, has agreed to a blanket silence on order to mitigate further damage, or
B. The police, knowing that they have overstepped the mark in the release of information to the media, have asked the media to stop reporting.
I cant help but wonder whether the judge at the bail hearing gave everyone, police, DPP, media, websites, a right royal serve about the publicity surrounding BS and the clear attempt to use a historical charge to further a current investigation, and a chastised media omitted reporting it.
A judge cannot order media not to report on a case. It can order suppression of a defendant's name. However, if that was the case, his name would not have appeared on the Court List.
Its possible that the judge made an aside about the significant adverse publicity of BS and issues that it may raise further down the track. The media may well have been asked by police to lay off. Or the Crown may have put the media on notice regarding a possible defamation claim by BS if he is acquitted.
What other case?Yeah but i am not sure they would be allowed to report on that case either.
I sent out a tweet earlier this morning to a reporter that I follow asking if there was any news on the court mention, so far I have had no reply. That may not mean anything though, they may not reply to random members of the public!
Hi Ksks
As an interest I know that Australian law has suppression/injunction orders, but do we also have super- injunctions that actually prevent the reporting that a suppression/injunction order exists at all like it does in England? If that isn't bad enough do Hyper- injunctions also exist in Australian law? If so God help all Sleuthers!
I'm not sure. Give me a few days and I will get back to you.
But something has clearly happened after BS was released on bail. For the first couple of days after he was released the media were following him everywere, and then, nothing. Not a single mention of the outcome of yesterday.
And the media dont suddenly stop a juicy story without orders from above.
Pretty obvious to
Me. The media have been told to back off
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thanks frogwell. :cheers:
Maybe there is no conspiracy. Maybe it was a total non-event and entirely administrative. There is a lot of other news in the media right now... if no new facts came out, what is there to say, really?