TOPIC:

Its about time we stopped the Police releasing the names of people charged with an offence.
Because you are given the right to be innocent until a court or a group of your peers convicts you.

Shane Yarran,s carrier may be over for something he may or MAY NOT be guilty of.

WTF it took the alleged victim and the police 15 mths to identify him.

His face has been splashed over the papers, internet for the last 2 years.

Some thing SMELLS here, is stinks to high heaven.(Victim of crime Money)

Shit if he was a alleged Paedophile his name wouldn't have been released.

Changes are needed in the system, Names only to be released when convicted.

PS not a Dockers supporter, prefer the WAFL and WAAFL

Nearly all persons charged with an offence have their names released. It has nothing to do with being charged 15 months after the event. Ben Cousins is splashed in our face on a regular basis.

You raise some valid points Swans75. Welcome to Ozfooty. However unfortunately for Yarran as an AFL footballer his identity and privacy is in the public domain and he has a chequered history that has already been well documented. That doesn't mean he doesn't deserve the presumption of innocence.

I have a suspicion Shane has a few enemies or there is jealousy among some in his indigenous circles that know if they can get at him they can bring him down. Still, he should be careful not to put himself in these situations.

Another thing DD is the case with Bennell. The lead into the news last night was Dockers star in more trouble and painting a picture of some major event. Then it turns out he had run out of points on his license and was driving when he shouldnt have and was charged. I rememnber doing the same thing myself, in fact I drove for over 2 years (license expired) not realising what I had done. When I discovered it I went to the police station and paid for renewal and that was it.
What Bennell did was 4 fifths of F.A.but as you say they have a high profile and have to be careful. At the end of the day they are just young men who make mistakes the same as you and I.(not referring to Yarrans problem)

My initial thoughts were - didn't know the points had built up to a point where his licence was suspended...yeh right!! But then I remembered that back in the early 80's I went into EP Traffic Office to apply for an International Licence in May. The lady informed me that I hadn't paid my renewal that was due the previous September. I missed it and the bill paying wife missed it. It seems to me that Harley may have made the same mistake.

What a load of absolute BS this thread is.

Crime reporters have always released the name of the accused person once Police give the all clear, and as long as its stated they are just allegations there are no problems.

Celebrities are entitled to bugger all special treatment. part of taking the big money is the attention that goes with it.

Freedom of the press is a basic tenant of our society and they should be free to report within the law.

In reference to Bennell, its not the fact that it was reported, more the fact of the coverage it received for a very insignificant and common offence. It was overkill to the max.

JB wrote: In reference to Bennell, its not the fact that it was reported, more the fact of the coverage it received for a very insignificant and common offence. It was overkill to the max.

That's WA for you, small town syndrome, both AFL sides suffer overkill coverage full stop.

I think this thread raises some very good points...should people have their names released when charged as when all is said and done, they're innocent until proved guilty and also, should the prosecuting agency be liable for costs if the defendant is found not guilty? my view is that someone charged with an offence shouldn't have their name released until proven guilty and the coppers, DPP, ACCC or any other agency bringing charges against someone should pay costs if that person is found not guilty....just my thoughts as some individuals never recover after being accused of various crimes even though they weren't convicted. also I know if people who have had to stump up with large sums of money to defend themselves where the prosecuting agency has been on a fishing expedition. I spent 20 years in a federal government organisation that prosecuted people on spurious evidence because they had nothing to lose...not good enough for mine.

BC wrote: I think this thread raises some very good points...should people have their names released when charged as when all is said and done, they're innocent until proved guilty and also, should the prosecuting agency be liable for costs if the defendant is found not guilty? my view is that someone charged with an offence shouldn't have their name released until proven guilty and the coppers, DPP, ACCC or any other agency bringing charges against someone should pay costs if that person is found not guilty....just my thoughts as some individuals never recover after being accused of various crimes even though they weren't convicted. also I know if people who have had to stump up with large sums of money to defend themselves where the prosecuting agency has been on a fishing expedition. I spent 20 years in a federal government organisation that prosecuted people on spurious evidence because they had nothing to lose...not good enough for mine.

There is a huge public interest in keeping the public aware of the justice process, hiding it would be totally against everything open and accountable justice stands for, that is why except in very rare occasions we have open courts where anyone can go and sit and watch proceedings, ( the same approach relates to Suppression Orders on the media) this approach has been part of our common law system since Anglo Saxon times, if the courts are not open how can the public know what is going on in them and be critical.

Keeping the public abreast of a trial in progress is part and parcel of that, to hide an accused identity would be pointless given anyone can walk in and see them in court and hear their names. To try and censor justice would be Stalinist.

In terms of costs, Defendants can seek and always do seek costs if incurred in Magistrates Courts at what are extremely generous rates, and are basically a licence to print dough for defence lawyers, for example if someone obtains a grant of Legal Aid and then Legal Aid outsource the Lawyer the outsourced lawyer despite already doing the brief on a set Legal Aid fee can seek above and beyond that fee hugely at the tax payers expense, its a rort that needs to be fixed.

The situation is different in the District and Supreme Courts, private lawyers cannot seek costs, however as the majority of DC and SC matters are already funded by the taxpayer Legal Aid and ALS the last thing that should happen is letting it an open slather like the MC costs arrangement.