Theo Theophanous, the Victorian government MP who has been charged with r-pe, has been busy using the media to defend himself against his accuser. An extensive interview in last Sunday’s Age newspaper was his latest foray. In adopting such a media strategy, Theophanous might be said to be countering fire with fire. For months now he has been the subject of innuendo and police leaks to the media, all of which have painted him in a bad light.
It seems however that it is ok for when the police use the media to pursue their quarry, but when the person being pursued resorts to such tactics, they risk being charged with contempt of court, which is what Theophanous now potentially faces after Victoria’s DPP looks at his Sunday Age interview.
Whether or not the DPP decides to charge Theophanous with contempt of court is a matter for the DPP, but there is a broader policy question which is exemplified by this case and that is, do contempt of court laws need reforming, given the use which is made of the media by police and other investigatory agencies today?
Police and prosecutorial authorities in recent years in Australia have become adept at using the media to spin the public’s view of a particular individual. Mr Theophanous is himself a case in point.
It is not without significance that it was a very senior police reporter, The Age’s John Silvester, who co-wrote the first stories on Mr. Theophanous’ case in October last year. These stories alleged that Victorian police were investigating an allegation by a woman, now in Greece, that Mr. Theophanous had s-xually assaulted her ten years ago. This story, and the many subsequent stories which were published between then and when Mr Theophanous was charged, only a couple of days before Christmas, were quite obviously and openly emanating from the Victoria Police.
This is not an isolated case. When police and security agencies arrested and charged men in Melbourne and Sydney with offences under anti-terror laws in November 2005, the media was told in advance of the raids and arrests and politicians, including Premiers, held media conferences in which they made overblown claims. (Disclaimer: I appeared for one of the accused in the Melbourne terrorism trial).
So if police and other prosecutorial agencies in Australia have gone down the American path in ensuring the media gets to know if they are investigating high profile individuals or what is happening in cases of particular public significance, why shouldn’t defence lawyers and their clients do the same?
There is not a level playing field here. It is well funded police media machines and their selected media outlets against the individual who in nine cases out of ten is stretched for resources in fighting off serious allegations. That is not fair.
The law either needs to be reformed to ensure that police and other investigatory agencies which leak damaging material about an individual before charges are laid can also be prosecuted for contempt of court.
Spoken like a true f***ing lawyer Tom McLoughlin !. Remind me never to employ you if I’m ever on a criminal charge. The police are quite vile they way they use the media and whip up the general public. Where the hell have you been ?. Obviously not in court-I;ve heard dolts of magistrates almost quoting from the Daily Telegraph and stating “the public is clamouing etc etc”. The bare facts are all the public is entitled to.
I could not agree more with the sentiments in this article by Greg Barns. I think it is disgraceful that the police are providing obvious tip-offs to the media about investigations and raids. All too often we see live footage of the arrests of “terror suspects” or high profile persons, even on SBS and ABC, who should know better. Whatever hapened to the presumption of innocence? We in Norfolk Island were shocked to see TV cameras filming the arrest by AFP members of a man in NZ who was later charged with murder. The viewing public were aware of this arrest even before the investigating Norfolk Island police were informed. Police are employed to uphold the law and to maintain the highest standards of integrity, not to become second-rate TV personalities in tacky live crime news stories.
Fair enough Col, though I a have been arrested 6 times on public interest campaigns and no convictions yet, several court hearings/judgements. Your views are noted as misconceived as they are. Perhaps you might re read my comment.
It is true to say I don’t hate the police. I don’t find that a useful approach to civil liberties and administration of justice issues.
Anyway I’m on a conditional certificate and unemployed so I couldn’t represent you anyway.
the police in Vic and NSW are an absolute disgrace in the way they use the media-many police media workers would be snapped up by soapie stars as excellent publicists. Toss in a few pollies like the quite vile former NSW premier Bob Carr, whose absolute ignorance of the rights of an accused wa san abomination (I hope Macquarie Bank are having second thoughts about employing this scumbag in the present finacial climate)-and an accused person is up against it.
Once accused., a person is up against the might of the state with unlimited funding ,unless very rich and sadly this is beginning to reflect the USA scene were wealth can decide whther a murderer goes free or not ( OJ ?). The rest are left to public defenders or as in NSW , a decimated legal aid service where they decide on your lawyer-not you unless you are rich. Whlst all lawyers no doubt give their best it is still a 2 tiered system.
Theophanous’ case reeks of dirty tactics and there shoud be atimelimit on these sex based accusations. Now that it’s become like winning th elottery for accusers (not one of whom ever gives back compo to help others), It’s the easiest claim to make.
Mmm, I don’t have a strong view about coppers talking to the media so far. But this story reminds me of Mal Turnbull on abc conversation hour talking about Kerry Packer running the risk of contempt of the Royal Commission when he fought fire with fire, in GB’s terms above. It worked for the alleged Goana too, and no contempt charge. MT implies it was a fair go after the RC leaks against Packer and all the press published the rebuttal by KP across the land.
It also reminds of a story I clipped from the Sydney Daily Telegraph of a copper named, Adam Purcell, here in NSW being prosecuted by the PIC for it seems serial leaking to the media, but also allegedly tipping off a witness about evidence in a rape case. This ran p19 14 Jan 2009 “Sinister forces try to hide trial from the public”.
Another question: What is the proper role of the Police Media Unit? It would be good to have a clearer framework for the public to consume regarding how they deal with the various matters that come around. Just because someone has not been charged yet, is that really the only restraint? How to judge the public right to know? When does it become a self interested Big Police/Big Media political agenda for more budget and perks and influence rather than simply valid public interest? It’s a tricky area all too grey for comfort.