Australia - Warriena Wright, 26, dies in balcony fall, Surfers Paradise, Aug 2014 #3

[Ausgirl]

Hi again Slinki. What I'm wondering now is WHY the courts made the transcripts available to the press -- when we here in Aus are so used to information being restricted where there's murder charges in place.

Was that an error, on behalf of the court? Who, exactly, was hands-on responsible for its release? If it was not an error or an illegal act by court staff, then we must presume the courts already decided it wouldn't taint the case?

This is an area I know little about, so even speculating is hard. Anyone clearer on what might have gone on, there?

 

[possumheart]

Hi again Slinki. What I'm wondering now is WHY the courts made the transcripts available to the press -- when we here in Aus are so used to information being restricted where there's murder charges in place.

Was that an error, on behalf of the court? Who, exactly, was hands-on responsible for its release? If it was not an error or an illegal act by court staff, then we must presume the courts already decided it wouldn't taint the case?

This is an area I know little about, so even speculating is hard. Anyone clearer on what might have gone on, there?

I read in comments on a news site (not linkable here) that the Baden-Clay trial was covered so extensively in the media to focus attention away from Campbell Newman's political games. It was suggested that the Tostee allegations were being utilised for the same purpose ... however the brakes have been put on that. It is an old political ploy, when politics get dirty, bring in the Carnival to distract the masses.
The Courier Mail trotted out Baden-Clay AGAIN last weekend as the news was slow ...

 

[SlinkiMalinki]

Hi again Slinki. What I'm wondering now is WHY the courts made the transcripts available to the press -- when we here in Aus are so used to information being restricted where there's murder charges in place.

Was that an error, on behalf of the court? Who, exactly, was hands-on responsible for its release? If it was not an error or an illegal act by court staff, then we must presume the courts already decided it wouldn't taint the case?

This is an area I know little about, so even speculating is hard. Anyone clearer on what might have gone on, there?

I agree with you Ausgirl. I'm not entirely familiar with the Australian Court System but I do think that like you pointed out, in Australia, the public is used to information being restricted AS IT SHOULD BE in a fair and civilised justice system. The contents of that audio file never have been released. Is it even admissible evidence now? You would hope that there must already have been an investigation as to why the transcript had been released and by whom, initiated by someone like the Attorney General perhaps? Did the release of the transcript crossed legal boundaries? How could it not have?

 

[possumheart]

Not to mention the amount of trauma it would have inflicted on the victim's family, no doubt compounding their grief. As I said many pages back, it was tantamount to ' shaming'. I am almost ashamed for wanting to get hold of the audio to try and make sense of it. In actuality I was trying to make sense of the conflicting transcriptions. A WS member patiently and kindy pointed out that journalists would only have had the opportunity to transcribe what they were viewing in a closed environment ... although the Daily Fail strangely claimed to have purchased the entire transcript.

 

[SouthAussie]

I posted a link further back in the threads that said that the defense team were able to ask for suppression, but they did not. The judge then said … well, the media has purchased the transcripts as they were entitled to do - due to no suppression.

So, imo it goes back to Tostee’s original defense team and their failing (whether intentional or not) to request suppression. I have to think that it was more intentional than not, though. They are a top law firm apparently. Can’t see them having a forgetful moment on something as important as this.

Perhaps they were supposed to ask for suppression at the very first hearing, or when they received the documents before the bail hearing? This article says that those documents would have been available to several parties, prior to the media purchasing them.

"Aside from the police, court officials and Mr Tostee's own legal team would have access to the documents."

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/que...ng-ogorman-20140906-10dgdn.html#ixzz3F9Exr7D7

 

[SlinkiMalinki]

I posted a link further back in the threads that said that the defense team were able to ask for suppression, but they did not. The judge then said … well, the media has purchased the transcripts as they were entitled to do - due to no suppression.

So, imo it goes back to Tostee’s original defense team and their failing (whether intentional or not) to request suppression. I have to think that it was more intentional than not, though. They are a top law firm apparently. Can’t see them having a forgetful moment on something as important as this.

http://media.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/qld-news/tostee-trial-would-be-prejudiced-5741251.html

According to this news article, it mentions the fact that affidavit was released to the Media "PRIOR TO" Tostee's Bail Application, giving no chance/opportunity for the Defence team to apply for suppression. As by the time that they could apply for suppression, it would have been "pointless" as stated by Mr Gorman (being interviewed in the story). The release of the transcript, according to Mr Gorman was something that has been "without precedent".

 

[SouthAussie]

http://media.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/qld-news/tostee-trial-would-be-prejudiced-5741251.html

According to this news article, it mentions the fact that affidavit was released to the Media "PRIOR TO" Tostee's Bail Application, giving no chance/opportunity for the Defence team to apply for suppression. As by the time that they could apply for suppression, it would have been "pointless" as stated by Mr Gorman (being interviewed in the story). The release of the transcript, according to Mr Gorman was something that has been "without precedent".

Yes, but I believe that a suppression order can be requested in chambers. It does not have to wait for a court hearing. I think it is basically a form they fill out and submit, and an order is granted or not. A bit like a search warrant is granted, and other things.


This is a NSW link, but Qld probably has one somewhere.

"A court can make a suppression or non-publication order on its own initiative or on application by a party to the proceedings or by any other person considered by the court to have sufficient interest in the making of the order: s 9. Those persons entitled to be heard on an application are set out in s 9(2)(d) and include news media organisations."

http://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/public..._court_and_non-publication_orders.html#p1-352

ETA: The bail hearing was Tostee's second appearance in this case.

 

[SlinkiMalinki]

Not to mention the amount of trauma it would have inflicted on the victim's family, no doubt compounding their grief. As I said many pages back, it was tantamount to ' shaming'. I am almost ashamed for wanting to get hold of the audio to try and make sense of it. In actuality I was trying to make sense of the conflicting transcriptions. A WS member patiently and kindy pointed out that journalists would only have had the opportunity to transcribe what they were viewing in a closed environment ... although the Daily Fail strangely claimed to have purchased the entire transcript.

Hmmm... I have trouble believing half of what these "tabloid" newspapers have put out there for us (the audience).

Possumheart, I am so with you on the devastating impact it would have had on Warriena's Mum, sister and loved ones. To have all the lurid details of Warriena's final hours splashed across on the news. I can only imagine it must be absolute heartwrenching torture for them to read any of this. It seems wrong (in my opinion) for the Media to publish all these details, especially when it seems a lot of it were "inferences" of what they think happened. And if Warriena were alive, she would have had rights as a victim to NOT have those details like this published due to privacy laws.

 

[SlinkiMalinki]

Yes, but I believe that a suppression order can be requested in chambers. It does not have to wait for a court hearing. I think it is basically a form they fill out and submit, and an order is granted or not. A bit like a search warrant is granted, and other things.

I might be wrong, as I am unsure about the timeline of how everything unfolded. I thought that the affidavit got release to a Media source (presumably purchased) before Tostee's Legal team had even submitted the Bail application (???) so by the time all hell broke loose and the story was already out on the 6 o'clock news that Friday night, AND even if they filed the suppression order in Chambers that Monday morning, the story would have already wreaked havoc and done its damage over the weekend.

But then again, who knows what the hell happened? Maybe Tostee's Defence team truly let him down and that is why he is switching lawyers.

 

[SouthAussie]

I might be wrong, as I am unsure about the timeline of how everything unfolded. I thought that the affidavit got release to a Media source (presumably purchased) before Tostee's Legal team had even submitted the Bail application (???) so by the time all hell broke loose and the story was already out on the 6 o'clock news that Friday night, AND even if they filed the suppression order in Chambers that Monday morning, the story would have already wreaked havoc and done its damage over the weekend.

But then again, who knows what the hell happened? Maybe Tostee's Defence team truly let him down and that is why he is switching lawyers.

BBM: Yep, I think you hit the nail on the head there. His defense team did not act according to his wishes/best interests at the time. They would have had some indication of what the 'proof' of murder was at the time of Tostee being charged in court. That was their cue to suppress information, and it did not even have to be documents at that point. They also were not clued up on Tostee's 'autism traits' for the bail hearing ... and the judge saved their butts and gave them time to look into it.

 

[Ausgirl]

I was actually thinking they had chosen not to focus on the autism thing, since there was plenty of witnesses in the media describing him as articulate and chatty and sociable.. Maybe not though.

 

[Ausgirl]

http://media.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/qld-news/tostee-trial-would-be-prejudiced-5741251.html

According to this news article, it mentions the fact that affidavit was released to the Media "PRIOR TO" Tostee's Bail Application, giving no chance/opportunity for the Defence team to apply for suppression. As by the time that they could apply for suppression, it would have been "pointless" as stated by Mr Gorman (being interviewed in the story). The release of the transcript, according to Mr Gorman was something that has been "without precedent".

If this really was a breach of law or rights, then I'd like to see WHO exactly released the information to the media, and WHY. I'd expect to see them facing consequences for their actions.

But since this apparent breach of rights works in Tostee's favour, I don't expect O'Gorman's firm to be all about pursuing it past the point where it serves their case. Kind of a jam they're in there, where a breach of the very thing they stand for may well get a client off scot free....

 

[possumheart]

Hmmm... I have trouble believing half of what these "tabloid" newspapers have put out there for us (the audience).

Possumheart, I am so with you on the devastating impact it would have had on Warriena's Mum, sister and loved ones. To have all the lurid details of Warriena's final hours splashed across on the news. I can only imagine it must be absolute heartwrenching torture for them to read any of this. It seems wrong (in my opinion) for the Media to publish all these details, especially when it seems a lot of it were "inferences" of what they think happened. And if Warriena were alive, she would have had rights as a victim to NOT have those details like this published due to privacy laws.

:goldstar::goldstar::heart::goldstar::goldstar:​

 

[SlinkiMalinki]

If this really was a breach of law or rights, then I'd like to see WHO exactly released the information to the media, and WHY. I'd expect to see them facing consequences for their actions.

But since this apparent breach of rights works in Tostee's favour, I don't expect O'Gorman's firm to be all about pursuing it past the point where it serves their case. Kind of a jam they're in there, where a breach of the very thing they stand for may well get a client off scot free....

I think a lot of people are with you on that one Ausgirl as that they would also like to see WHO and WHY.

All we can do now is sit back and watch how the rest of this story unfolds.

 

[MsAnais]

I posted a link further back in the threads that said that the defense team were able to ask for suppression, but they did not. The judge then said … well, the media has purchased the transcripts as they were entitled to do - due to no suppression.

So, imo it goes back to Tostee’s original defense team and their failing (whether intentional or not) to request suppression. I have to think that it was more intentional than not, though. They are a top law firm apparently. Can’t see them having a forgetful moment on something as important as this.

Perhaps they were supposed to ask for suppression at the very first hearing, or when they received the documents before the bail hearing? This article says that those documents would have been available to several parties, prior to the media purchasing them.

"Aside from the police, court officials and Mr Tostee's own legal team would have access to the documents."

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/que...ng-ogorman-20140906-10dgdn.html#ixzz3F9Exr7D7

I personally suspect you've summed it up SouthAussie. This is about the defense team imo - if they were able to ask for suppression and didn't, then surely it is a tactic.

I just can't believe that's merely shoddy work - surely seeking a suppression order would be part of "Defense Lawyering 101"?

It's in Tostee's interests to have this info out there as it has been - as then they have a valid argument against him being unable to receive a fair trial.

I always suspected it was a defense ploy - but a risky one......they can't just set that as a precedence for a mistrial, as then every law firm will be releasing such private info straight up, as in this case.

So let's see what happens.

I just hope justice is served for Warriena, regardless of media sideshows and legal wranglings. That's the important thing.

 

[MsAnais]

I was actually thinking they had chosen not to focus on the autism thing, since there was plenty of witnesses in the media describing him as articulate and chatty and sociable.. Maybe not though.

I still wait - with great interest - to see an INDEPENDENT psychiatric diagnosis of Mr Tostee.............

Two would be better. With neither funded by the defense.

 

[SlinkiMalinki]

I still wait - with great interest - to see an INDEPENDENT psychiatric diagnosis of Mr Tostee.............

Two would be better. With neither funded by the defense.

Found this document REPORT ON ACCESS TO COURT INFORMATION published by the Attorney General's Department NSW Government June 2008

http://www.imf.com.au/docs/default-source/site-documents/court_info---public-and-media-access

The Media has already breached sub judice rules by publishing Tostee's criminal history and it is not likely they would publish his psychiatric diagnosis unless they want to further breach these rules.

Excerpt from Page 42
"Protection of Information on the basis of Privacy Considerations

The introduction of broader rights of access to the media should be balanced
by the need to protect against the unnecessary publication of personal
information.

The court has a primary obligation to ensure that personal and sensitive
information contained in court records is not used for improper purposes. For
this reason, the legislative regime should contain a legislative prohibition
against publication of the personal unique identifiers referred to in Chapter 5.
In addition to personal unique identifiers, there are a number of court
documents that contain highly personal information. A number of these were
discussed in Chapter 3 as specific exclusions against open access
information. While these documents are excluded from open public access,
the media may be entitled to access this information by virtue of its “special
right” to access information that may be produced in documentary form. That
right is subject to legislative restrictions against publication.
The following information and documents should be subject to a legislative
restriction against publication:

1. personal unique identifiers;
2. criminal and traffic antecedents;
3. medical and health records;
4. psychiatric and psychological reports;
5. pre-sentence reports;
6. victim impact statements;
7. letters of comfort"

 

[MsAnais]

Thanks for that info, Slinki.

I personally doubt the veracity of an already existing official diagnosis of austism - the language used (as we've discussed earlier in the thread so I won't go over it again) was not that of a mental health professional.

I'm referring to when this case goes to trial - and we do indeed get more info coming out, as we always do - that any diagnoses made since his arrest will be discussed.

Although, in other cases I'm following on WS - Morgan Huxley in Sydney and the Adamson family in Melbourne - the accused killers were both diagnosed with Aspergers and that info has been released into the public domain prior to trial.

 

[SouthAussie]

Well, certainly a few questions have been raised. Who decided to allow the release of all that information, who decided not to suppress the criminal history (although only the forgery was ‘history’, the crazy driving was/is still current), who decided to not speak of the ‘autism’?

Sounds as if it could all be one source to me.

I think application for suppression is Defense Lawyering 101, as Isis says. And it is just usual procedure for the criminal history and any other potentially damaging items to be requested for suppression by the defense. But in this case, they oops … forgot.

I can see Tostee saying …. no, no, don’t mention the autism angle, I’m cool, all my buddies think so (or, I don’t really have any proof of that) … let’s let people hear the (doctored) recordings that are not even on the original recording device, then they are sure to realise that little Warriena was beating big Gabe up, and I had nothing to do with the fall … let them hear about the forgery, then they’ll know I’m not a violent type …

I just don’t think he even thought about all of his messed-up thinking that revealed itself on the body building forum. :facepalm:

 

[MsAnais]

Oooooohhhh yeah, SouthAussie - very true! :seeya:

He certainly never factored in his quality posts on the bb forum and how much of his previous predatory, rapey behaviour they would reveal.........:facepalm: