The recent reports on convicted paedophile Denis Ferguson has had some interesting repercussions. Whilst I think that every parent would want to know what was going on in their community, especially if there children were at risk of being interfered with, there comes a time when media reporting can actually prejudice a trial.  We have seen that with the most recent charges concerning this man being appealed on the grounds that the man could not get a fair trial.  And now, we see that other magistrates are suppressing the names of those who are going to trial.  Which on one hand seems fair as you are innocent until proven guilty in our justice system, however also means that people are not informed that they are in contact with some one potentially dangerous.  For example, I think every woman in Brisbane would want to know when the man attacking women on Northside walking tracks is found.  To extend this further, some friends and I were shocked one day to see in the news a woman who had left the Commonwealth Bank because she was facing fraud and embezzlement charges was turning up to court in the uniform of the bank we worked for.  We never figured out if the paper got it wrong or if our company had employed her.  Even if a new organisation did a police check, it would come back with nothing as she was yet to be convicted (again innocent until proven guilty) and it would be unlikely that she would have given referees who knew or would be willing to reveal what had gone on.  In fact if she had not yet been convicted would mentioning why she was facing trial be slander?

The other case which, I hope will go to court, that has been getting a lot of attention is the Belinda Neal incident at Iguanas “Nightclub.”  There have been some fairly detailed reports and interviews of what was supposed to have happened and also how she allegedly forced a staffer to change her stat dec.  That coupled with some general character assassination that has been going on, has made me wonder if this case could also be tried in a fair manner (assuming it goes before a jury, which it may not, I’m not an expert in those sorts of things).  I don’t doubt that Belinda Neal is a royal mother b!tch.  I’ve met enough politicians to know that whilst many are generally approachable and endearing (and the ones you really want to hate are actually usually quite charismatic), there are also some that seem to be rather self important because they managed to get more votes than someone else in an election.  Obviously it would be easier for some one in a fairly safe seat to do this (which I assume Neal’s is) and it would be easier again if you constituency were so deeply entrenched in their voting for a particular party that most of the person in questions time could be put towards improving their profile in the party.  I don’t doubt that Neal has lost touch with reality, and as you all know, I hate socialists.  But she and her husband are both still entitled to a fair trial, should it go that far.  And whilst I don’t have a lot of faith in our court system, being too expensive to be readily accessible, and too many laws being produced by a bunch of morons for any real sense of justice or fairness to shine through, I still think that the process is meaningful and should be followed to the letter.  Regardless of who is before the court.

A couple of Belinda Neal articles:

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/articles/2008/06/17/1213468454572.html

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=589204