Disqus - Latest Comments for Legal_Eagle

Re: At last, a decent book on ‘climate change’

Legal_Eagle — Wed, 24 Jul 2013 17:36:37 -0000

Hey Don, just wanted to say that your article on academia, research and teaching in The Age today was fantastic. Cheers.

Re: Love And Passion

Legal_Eagle — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:49:59 -0000

Eclectic is good. I blog with two others, and we all have very different opinions, which keeps it interesting.

Funnily enough, while I'm happy to comment at my own blog, I'm rather shy about commenting at others. I only comment if I have something specific to say.

I loved your Father's Day post too. Great photo of the three generations.

Re: Love And Passion

Legal_Eagle — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 19:37:41 -0000

I came across your site via Neil and Jim.

This was such a beautiful post that it moved me to tears.

Re: How does publishing an accused's name help anyone?

Legal_Eagle — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 02:36:41 -0000

Jayne, I think the hate groups should be charged with contempt of court if possible.

I wonder how it would work if they are not resident in Victoria? It might be difficult for the reasons described above. Still, I think an example needs to be made.

Re: How does publishing an accused's name help anyone?

Legal_Eagle — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 01:24:41 -0000

The magistrate clearly took a pragmatic view on the basis that the information was leaking out despite his suppression order. If anyone really wanted to know information about the accused, they could easily find out by a Google search. There was no way the magistrate could effectively enforce his order.

Unfortunately, I suspect the accused will have difficulty in getting a fair trial, whether his name was suppressed or not. It probably doesn't help that he was also arrested for possession of child p*rn - not just an alleged arsonist, but an alleged paedophile too.

But I deplore the formation of vigilante Facebook groups. As I said over at Iain's blog, it’s understandable to be angry at somebody who is accused of such a terrible act. And passions are running very high about the bushfires right now.

But our legal system says that this guy is innocent until proven guilty. By assuming this guy’s guilt without knowing all the evidence, they may cause his trial to be derailed, as the defence barristers will be able to argue that he has been unfairly prejudiced before the trial even began. Do they really want to make it very difficult to prosecute this guy? Seems to me that they need to think carefully about it.