To report "Not Guilty" after submissions in a murder trial is a contempt of court. How come Shorten et al get away with it in the TURC
Monday, 09 November 2015
You'd hope at least one or two journalists would have read at least as far as the second page of Jeremy Stoljar SC's fallible submissions to Commissioner Heydon about the AWU on Friday.
That's where Stoljar said:
-
To begin with, it should be emphasised that what follows are submissions only. Any person affected by these submissions has the right to respond, to identify what the person contends are the flaws in the reasoning and to urge a different approach.
-
Since these are submissions, they do not contain any recommendations. Any recommendations will be made by the Commissioner in his Report. That will only occur after the Commissioner has received submissions from all parties and considered all competing points of view.
But by Friday night the horse called Shorten In The Clear (by Media Release out of Sussex Street) had bolted.
No matter how impressive or convincing a Barrister's submissions may be in summing up a criminal trial, it's prudent to await the return of the jury and the judge's final word before running with a headline like "Not Guilty".
But for some herd-instinct related reason, that message is lost when it comes to this Royal Commission and Bill Shorten.
Stoljar screws up often and large. The Commissioner ignored or contradicted many of Mr Stoljar's submissions in 2014. Mr Heydon will have a range of inputs for his final report, Mr Stoljar's submissions included before he comes to his non-binding decision about Shorten and the AWU. He may then make certain recommendations that prosecution authorities may or may not choose to act on. Prosecutors and police investigators may well pursue lines of enquiry that Stoljar SC chose not to lead before the Commissioner.
We know there are spin doctors and PR flacks trying to shape how the Commission is reported. Good on them, it's their job. But the public at least deserves the simple facts from the mainstream media presented by competent journalists.
We used to be able to rely on a disinterested fourth estate for that. It would rather languish in a Egyptian gaol than regurgitate spin as fact and news. No more.
Shorten might face charges, he might not, who knows? The truth is no one does. It would be wrong to report Shorten had been convicted of an offence on the strength of submissions from Counsel Assisting the Commission. Likewise it's wrong to report Shorten has been cleared of wrongdoing.
The media is supposed to be our last bastion of defence, a diverse, disinterested teller of truth. It should be incorruptible and not up for collective enlistment to push a barrow. Imagine Sir Keith Murdoch (of Gallipoli fame) faced with the bullshit on last Friday night, "Yeah, no worries, it's all good, keep up the supply of men to the front until we run out. I don't know what the Field Marshall said, but whatever the Field Marshall said, I support it."
How'd we get from Keith Murdoch to Mark Scott?
Maybe the Twitter 140 character language does come in handy from time to time. In moments of exasperation. Like now.
FFS.
UPDATE - MONDAY EVENING 10PM
No longer happy with submissions, nor an upgrade to recommendations - now FINDINGS!!!!! Here's a screen grab from The Australian.