Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, Nsw, 12 Sept 2014 - #33

[Warshawski]

I wonder how she would have known about the historical crimes. One would think that something as terrible as that would want to be kept under wraps by the parents, and not let any of the in-laws know.

But if what you say is the case, and it very well may be imo, then evidently someone in the family is speaking of the abuse ... speaking of it enough that Margaret's kids know about it, and the in laws know about it.

And this would have been spoken of before he was arrested for the historical crimes, naturally. If Margaret's son's partner was the informer. Sounds as though at least some of the relatives think he is capable of crimes against children.

I might be totalled confused (usually am) but my thoughts were that the ex-partner of MS son, is fighting to have children returned to her, which led me to believe that she would have dug up everything she could in the process ... just my thoughts, and as I said, quite possibly I've got everything / everyone confused.

 

[Warshawski]

It’s just over a week to go until Karlie’s next scheduled appearance at Burwood Court and BS’ argument, presumably for a tort of defamation against the DM and Nationwide News in the NSW Supreme Court. I wonder where that will take us, if anywhere.

so sorry, I am out of pace with BS court results. Has he been exonerated from all ??

 

[JLZ]

so sorry, I am out of pace with BS court results. Has he been exonerated from all ??

I think we're all still wondering. The NSW case appears to have ended--with what result we don't know--and there's been no sign that the Vic case has begun. Meanwhile there are proceedings in NSW between Spedding and a media company. From where we stand he doesn't seem to have grounds to sue for defamation so perhaps he is trying to prevent something from being published or broadcast.

 

[Cagney&Lacey]

that was my thought too C & L. .. Except it's 'ex' if I'm on the same page ...

Yes that's correct Warshawski. Now EX partner


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Cagney&Lacey]

I might be totalled confused (usually am) but my thoughts were that the ex-partner of MS son, is fighting to have children returned to her, which led me to believe that she would have dug up everything she could in the process ... just my thoughts, and as I said, quite possibly I've got everything / everyone confused.

I don't think you're confused at all. She was very vocal on her SM about her dislike for MS at the time so I would imagine she would have used any weapon in her arsenal. I would have thought however if she was aware of BS historical allegations she would have also shouted it from the rooftops, not just reported him. Who knows....maybe she did within her circle of friends


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Wexford]

I don't think you're confused at all. She was very vocal on her SM about her dislike for MS at the time so I would imagine she would have used any weapon in her arsenal. I would have thought however if she was aware of BS historical allegations she would have also shouted it from the rooftops, not just reported him. Who knows....maybe she did within her circle of friends


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Agree. Except she lives in Wellington, not Central Coast. Maybe Central West? could be an error? That would make more sense.

 

[Bohemian]

I think we're all still wondering. The NSW case appears to have ended--with what result we don't know--and there's been no sign that the Vic case has begun. Meanwhile there are proceedings in NSW between Spedding and a media company. From where we stand he doesn't seem to have grounds to sue for defamation so perhaps he is trying to prevent something from being published or broadcast.

I’m trying to figure out how the NSW Supreme Court could have jurisdiction over suppression of details of a trial heard in the Criminal Court being published in MSM. Could you explain it in lay terms, quoting the legislation please, JLZ?

 

[JLZ]

I’m trying to figure out how the NSW Supreme Court could have jurisdiction over suppression of details of a trial heard in the Criminal Court being published in MSM. Could you explain it in lay terms, quoting the legislation please, JLZ?

Sorry, I don't know. I did some browsing but it seems a difficult area to nail down. I was thinking that the material Spedding may want to suppress is not limited to the recent court case. I'll keep reading.

 

[JLZ]

There's a Tasmanian case that went to the High Court in 2006 after the plaintiff took action in the Supreme Court of Tasmania for defamation and to prevent further broadcasting of his criminal history. Australian Broadcasting Commission v O'Neill.

The respondent was convicted in 1975 of
the murder of a young boy and was
sentenced to life imprisonment. He wa
s also charged in 1975 with the murder
of a second child but he was not tried
for that offence, as he was already
serving a life sentence. In 1999,
the respondent was befriended by a film
maker, Gordon Davie, who, with his consen
t, filmed some of his prison activities
and conducted interviews. The resulting film, "The Fisherman", was shown at a
film festival in Hobart in January 2005.
The film included material about other
abductions and murders of young children alleged to have been committed by
the respondent, including the disappearance
of the Beaumont children. The
appellant ("the ABC") intended to broadcast
the film on national television on 28
April 2005.
The respondent issued a writ in the S
upreme Court of Tasmania on 15 April
2005 seeking damages from the ABC and Da
vie for defamation. He also
sought an interlocutory injunction rest
raining the ABC or its agents from
publishing or broadcasting the film.
http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/registry/case-summaries/2006/06-03-21sp.pdf
(sorry about the formatting)

and some more on the same case here:
http://www.5rb.com/case/australian-broadcasting-corporation-v-oneill/

 

[Bohemian]

Sorry, I don't know. I did some browsing but it seems a difficult area to nail down. I was thinking that the material Spedding may want to suppress is not limited to the recent court case. I'll keep reading.

Maybe this will help:

https://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publi.../closed_court_and_non-publication_orders.html

It’s all Greek to me.

 

[Bohemian]

There's a Tasmanian case that went to the High Court in 2006 after the plaintiff took action in the Supreme Court of Tasmania for defamation and to prevent further broadcasting of his criminal history. Australian Broadcasting Commission v O'Neill.

The respondent was convicted in 1975 of
the murder of a young boy and was
sentenced to life imprisonment. He wa
s also charged in 1975 with the murder
of a second child but he was not tried
for that offence, as he was already
serving a life sentence. In 1999,
the respondent was befriended by a film
maker, Gordon Davie, who, with his consen
t, filmed some of his prison activities
and conducted interviews. The resulting film, "The Fisherman", was shown at a
film festival in Hobart in January 2005.
The film included material about other
abductions and murders of young children alleged to have been committed by
the respondent, including the disappearance
of the Beaumont children. The
appellant ("the ABC") intended to broadcast
the film on national television on 28
April 2005.
The respondent issued a writ in the S
upreme Court of Tasmania on 15 April
2005 seeking damages from the ABC and Da
vie for defamation. He also
sought an interlocutory injunction rest
raining the ABC or its agents from
publishing or broadcasting the film.
http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/registry/case-summaries/2006/06-03-21sp.pdf
(sorry about the formatting)

and some more on the same case here:
http://www.5rb.com/case/australian-broadcasting-corporation-v-oneill/

Thanks JLZ.

 

[SouthAussie]

Sorry, I don't know. I did some browsing but it seems a difficult area to nail down. I was thinking that the material Spedding may want to suppress is not limited to the recent court case. I'll keep reading.

The specific part of NSW legislation that 'could' allow suppression of publishing further particulars regarding Spedding and the two young girls/now women, as I see it:

Grounds for making an order ...

(d) the order is necessary to avoid causing undue distress or embarrassment to a party to or witness in criminal proceedings involving an offence of a sexual nature (including an act of indecency)

https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/act/2010/106/full

The part that I think could outweigh a suppression request, as I see it:

Safeguarding public interest in open justice

In deciding whether to make a suppression order or non-publication order, a court must take into account that a primary objective of the administration of justice is to safeguard the public interest in open justice.

https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/act/2010/106/full

I could see a court argument over these opposing interests.

 

[JLZ]

The specific part of NSW legislation that 'could' allow suppression of publishing further particulars regarding Spedding and the two young girls/now women, as I see it:


[/I]

The part that I think could outweigh a suppression request, as I see it:



I could see a court argument over these opposing interests.

I've got a couple of doubts about that. For one thing the proceeding in the Supreme Court is listed (IIRC) as Spedding against a media company, not one of the victims against the company. I think it's unlikely that the law aiming to protect embarrassable parties in cases involving indecency is intended to protect perpetrators. Though maybe if the accused was found not guilty? And my other doubt goes back to Bo's question of why this is a separate matter in the Supreme Court, when (but I may be wrong) the Local Court could have made a suppression or non-publication order in the course of the trial. Trials do involve behind-the-scenes argument, but you don't have a separate case listed every time that happens.

I think that the Supreme Court listing is referring to a separate, civil case, possibly involving defamation law, which is separate from court suppression and non-publication law. I was looking here https://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/civil/defamation.html but I don't find it enlightening.

 

[Bohemian]

I've got a couple of doubts about that. For one thing the proceeding in the Supreme Court is listed (IIRC) as Spedding against a media company, not one of the victims against the company. I think it's unlikely that the law aiming to protect embarrassable parties in cases involving indecency is intended to protect perpetrators. Though maybe if the accused was found not guilty? And my other doubt goes back to Bo's question of why this is a separate matter in the Supreme Court, when (but I may be wrong) the Local Court could have made a suppression or non-publication order in the course of the trial. Trials do involve behind-the-scenes argument, but you don't have a separate case listed every time that happens.

I think that the Supreme Court listing is referring to a separate, civil case, possibly involving defamation law, which is separate from court suppression and non-publication law. I was looking here https://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/civil/defamation.html but I don't find it enlightening.

The only thing I can think of is that the actions could refer to an article or articles printed by a Nationwide News outlet then reprinted, with acknowledgement, by the Daily Mail—a not uncommon occurrence during the investigation into William’s abduction and/or the historical child sexual assault charges. Just which article or articles that could be has me stumped.

 

[sosocurious]

The only thing I can think of is that the action could refer to an article or articles printed in by a Nationwide News outlet then reprinted, with acknowledgement, by the Daily Mail—a not uncommon occurrence during the investigation into William’s abduction and/or the historical child sexual assault charges. Just which article or articles that could be has me stumped.

Ditto Bo

So that would mean something published in the last 12 months.

What is defamation?
Officially, 'defamation occurs where one person communicates, by words, photographs, video, illustrations or other means, material which has the effect or tendency of damaging the reputation of another'.
Defamation law itself, however, is a complicated and constantly changing and evolving area of the law, especially with all the rapid advances in technology which seem to be occurring on a daily basis.
In order to make a defamation claim, you must commence legal action no later than 1 year after the publication of the material that you believe to be defamatory.

https://www.stacklaw.com.au/service/personal/challenges/disputes/defamation-claims/

 

[Bohemian]

Ditto Bo

So that would mean something published in the last 12 months.

What is defamation?
Officially, 'defamation occurs where one person communicates, by words, photographs, video, illustrations or other means, material which has the effect or tendency of damaging the reputation of another'.
Defamation law itself, however, is a complicated and constantly changing and evolving area of the law, especially with all the rapid advances in technology which seem to be occurring on a daily basis.
In order to make a defamation claim, you must commence legal action no later than 1 year after the publication of the material that you believe to be defamatory.

https://www.stacklaw.com.au/service/personal/challenges/disputes/defamation-claims/

Yes, I was thinking that it has to be an article published within the last twelve months due to the statute of limitations. It’s intriguing, huh? I suppose that’s been par for the course right the way through this case. So many questions, so few answers. The one burning question there is no answer to as yet, ‘Where’s William?’.

 

[bearbear]

ot but i wonder, was this woman was a websleuther?
http://www.news.com.au/world/north-...n/news-story/61512fc51ba37802cfbfca196ff46f07

 

[JLZ]

The only thing I can think of is that the actions could refer to an article or articles printed by a Nationwide News outlet then reprinted, with acknowledgement, by the Daily Mail—a not uncommon occurrence during the investigation into William’s abduction and/or the historical child sexual assault charges. Just which article or articles that could be has me stumped.

There was an article that described Spedding as a convicted pedophile. I think that was Daily Mail but I also think it was more than twelve months ago. But how long does it take for a court case to take place after the action is started? It's possible that Spedding launched the action in time but the hearing couldn't happen immediately because of court backlogs or whatever. But whether he'd get Legal Aid for that--I don't know. I can't see him funding a defamation case himself. On the other hand, if he's seeking an injunction to stop publication/broadcasting (still under defamation law I believe)--if the Victorian case is pending he would have a good argument to forestall future material that might prejudice the jury, but wouldn't sub judice cover that anyway?

 

[SouthAussie]

I've got a couple of doubts about that. For one thing the proceeding in the Supreme Court is listed (IIRC) as Spedding against a media company, not one of the victims against the company. I think it's unlikely that the law aiming to protect embarrassable parties in cases involving indecency is intended to protect perpetrators. Though maybe if the accused was found not guilty? And my other doubt goes back to Bo's question of why this is a separate matter in the Supreme Court, when (but I may be wrong) the Local Court could have made a suppression or non-publication order in the course of the trial. Trials do involve behind-the-scenes argument, but you don't have a separate case listed every time that happens.

I think that the Supreme Court listing is referring to a separate, civil case, possibly involving defamation law, which is separate from court suppression and non-publication law. I was looking here https://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/civil/defamation.html but I don't find it enlightening.

This does not have to be about any court case. This could be the girls wanting to tell their story ... through the two publications involved.

That is why I referred to those two lines in the legislation. One party not wanting to be 'embarrassed' and the other party wanting the right to tell the story to the public, and retain freedom of the press (and the victims).

Victims of institutional abuse have told their stories. I wonder how that has been achieved?

.

 

[SouthAussie]

There was an article that described Spedding as a convicted pedophile. I think that was Daily Mail but I also think it was more than twelve months ago. But how long does it take for a court case to take place after the action is started? It's possible that Spedding launched the action in time but the hearing couldn't happen immediately because of court backlogs or whatever. But whether he'd get Legal Aid for that--I don't know. I can't see him funding a defamation case himself. On the other hand, if he's seeking an injunction to stop publication/broadcasting (still under defamation law I believe)--if the Victorian case is pending he would have a good argument to forestall future material that might prejudice the jury, but wouldn't sub judice cover that anyway?

BBM
I hadn't seen that written before ... the convicted thing. But I found it in this article http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ell-identified-hundreds-persons-interest.html .

Of note is the fact that the article also links to The Australian (at the bottom of the article). I am unable to open The Australian's link to see what is contained in that.

Interesting that they haven't edited their article, if that is what this is about. Makes me wonder if there is a conviction somewhere. Maybe the Daily Mail intends to stand its ground in legal argument, as it hasn't removed that phrase (IF that is what this legal argument is about).

The article is dated Sept 2016.