23
Hopefully this means it will be a full trial with an outcome unbiased by media (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/australia@aussie.zone
23 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 0 points 3 years ago (2 children)

Do you think the idea behind open justice would lose any merit if a person on trial has their name redacted from media publications?

I'm not lost on the irony of, public scrutinises court, good; public also scrutinises defendant, bad.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

    Honestly, I think in a lot of cases, it's silly.

    Let's be honest. We all know who we're talking about in this specific case, right? Whether the media is allowed to print the name or not doesn't matter at all.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago

    Yeah, I imagine high-profile cases would be quite obvious :)

    I don't know if there's anything stopping a person going to the media about a case before it even starts either, but imagine that's a tactic. Cochran proved the power of appeal to the public so I imagine that someone on a mission will try whatever advantage possible.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent