The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Freedom of the press versus civil liberties

Freedom of the press versus civil liberties

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All
Tao, The Court of Appeal has not convicted Thomas. They have simply said that the Four Corners interview is admissable material and that the DPP is entitled to put it to a new jury if he/she so wishes. If a re-trial is held it will still be a verdict arrived at by a Jury. The original evidence that was deemed inadmissable will not be put to the new jury.
It is worth noting that the appeal judges who over-rode the decision of the trial judge to admit certain evidence also, in a seperate and later hearing, determined the admissibility of the Four Corners material. Given that the appeal judges were willing to rule in Thomas' favour on the first occasion it is hard to claim that they were inherantly biased against him when the second matter was put to them at a later date.
Your assertion that someone under the control of the Australian government was responsible for torturing Thomas is quite unfair on the Australian Federal Police officers involved in this case. AFP officers also have civil rights. If there is evidence to support an allegation of them torturing someone then I would expect them to be charged. To my knowledge no charges have been laid against AFP officers involved in this case.
You may run the line that AFP officers have not been charged because the judiciary is under the thumb of the government. In my view there is no evidence of such collusion between the goverment and the judiciary in Austalia but that will not stop conspiracy theories.
I do not know the full details of why the appeal judges over-rode the trial judge about the admissability of certain evidence. One would need to read their entire appeal judgement. The appeal judges may have ruled material inadmissable because of a lack of legal representation at the time rather than because there was evidence of mental or physical abuse by AFP officers. Even the possibility of abuse e.g no video recording of an interview, may sway the judges to rule in favour of an accused.
Posted by Logical?, Friday, 29 December 2006 4:23:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy