IN THE COURT OF  APPEAL OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA
No, AP 1 of 1988

BETWEEN: RON MANN

AND:

Applicant

THE NORTHERN TERRITORY NEWS
Respondent

CORAM:	NADER J

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(delivered 22 March 1988)

I publisll	reasons for granting, on 10 March 1988, an application made on that date by Mr H Bradley, on behalf of the defendant/respondent, for my disqualification from continuing to sit as a member of the Court of Appeal in this case.	The case concerns a question of procedure in a defamation action by the plaintiff, Mann, against the NT News, the only local
daily newspaper circulating in Darwin.	The proceedings had reached a point where the Court, of which I was a member, had granted the plaintiff leave to appeal against an order of a single judge of the Court.	On 10 March 1988, the Court was to hear further submissions on the merits of the appeal.

Mr Bradley submitted that, although not actually biased, I would be perceived by others to be biased against his client so as to require my disqualification from continuing to sit as a member of the Court in this case.

The plaintiff opposed the defendant's application, but I granted it without then giving reasons though stating that I would do so later.

THE ALLEGATIONS

No evidence was adduced in support of the application, but, in the course of his submissions, Mr Bradley referred to events which he said create a perception of such bias that I should withdraw from the bench hearing this case.	I shall start by stating Mr Bradley's allegations in plain language, as fairly as I can, at first without comment:

I am an outspoken judge: a quality that has merit but also carries for me the risks of plain speaking.	A person who speaks plainly becomes better known than a person who does not, and his views in respect of matters become better known.

I have been highly critical of the press, generally when dealing with matters associated with the defendant.

In Lawrie v NT News (unreported, 28 November 1985, Nader J) I was most critical of the conduct of the editor and certain other employees of the NT News.	That case did not
itself indicate a bias but was an example of my outspoken criticism of the newspaper and its staff.

4	In Alice Springs, while exhorting a jury to disregard matter published in an Alice Springs newspaper, I spoke of that newspaper's journalistic standards in derogatory terms.	I said that I did not think that it was a newspaper that people would take seriously.	I compared its journalistic standards to that of 'Pix' or 'People'.

In a criminal trial in 1986 (The Queen v Petersen, Supreme Court 18, 19 and 20 November 1986) I spoke of the lack of 'relationship' between myself and Mr John Hogan, the Managing Editor, at that time, of the defendant's newspaper.	I attacked Mr Hogan for making an attack upon me at a public function.	I described the NT News' reporting as
'gutter journalism from a very low-grade journal'.	I suggested that the criminal work of the court should be handed over to the NT  News.	I was critical of the
NT News on 3 or 4 occasions in the course of the
trial: on more than one occasion my criticisms were harsh. My criticisms were 'emotive'.

I have expressed adverse opinions of the NT News to other members of the legal profession,

I told Mr Bradley, on a social occasion which he did not consider to be confidential, that I would disqualify myself from hearing any case concerning the NT News if he
were to ask me to do so.

Those who know me might well think that I am incapable of allowing bias to affect my decisions once I sit and carefully think about a case or when I am making a decision as distinct from what I might say on matters that are not justiciable before me.

MY COMMENTS ON THE ALLEGATIONS

I am not in a position to assess whether I am more or less outspoken than any other judge of the court.	I have been 'outspoken', publicly, only in the course of litigation when it seemed appropriate to be so.	This	general submission is of little value unsupported as it is by specific facts. Perhaps Mr Bradley intended his subsequent more specific allegations to illustrate the general allegation of outspokenness.

(a)	I have been highly critical of the press at times.

There are times when a judge would be remiss if he were not to point out to a newspaper publisher in the strongest terms that it had fallen short of its duty in relation to a report of proceedings.	In our society the courts depend on newspapers, radio and television, but especially the newspapers, to publish reports of legal proceedings.	Part of our legal practice depends upon the assumption that such reports will be made.	One only has to consider the applied belief that prison sentences act as a deterrent to would-be criminals to understand that, unless someone responsibly reports the facts and the results of criminal cases, that belief is largely invalidated.

It is detrimental to the administration of justice when a newspaper prints something that may influence a jury to give a verdict other than the one it might otherwise have given. In a general way, bad reporting of court proceedings can, in the long run, bring the administration of justice into disrepute.	Letters to the editor, written following my  remarks concerning the Petersen Case (see below), well illustrate the point: those letters from sincere citizens were partly founded on the false premises set up by newspaper reports.	The court therefore has a legitimate interest in how the press performs its task in relation to legal proceedings and a corresponding duty to make appropriate comment, or even to take appropriate action, when reporting

is marked either by distorting sensationalism or has a potential to pervert the course of justice.

(b)	The reason why such critical comments as I may have made are 'almost always' directed at the NT News is that
it is the only local daily newspaper in Darwin.

It would be inappropriate to examine here the facts of Lawrie v Northern Territory News Services Pty Ltd (unreported, 28 November 1985, Nader J), but there can be no doubt that the NT News perpetrated a serious
defamation of the plaintiff by a prominently published derogatory falsehood concerning her behaviour.	The persons responsible deserved strong censure, and I said so.	I awarded Miss Lawrie damages of $28900 and costs.	There was no appeal.	The conduct I criticised was the very conduct that led to and included the publication of the libel.

My criticism of the Alice Springs newspaper was made after counsel for an accused person in a criminal trial had complained of an article published in that newspaper in the course of the trial.	I was concerned that sensational reporting might influence the due progress of the trial.

On 18 November 1986, Petersen was charged before me with the crime of unlawfully causing grievous harm to a man named Liddell.	It was alleged that he stabbed Liddell.	The trial

proceeded before a jury until 21 November when the jury found the accused not guilty.	On the evidence, neither the conduct of the accused nor that of the injured man, Liddell, was commendable.	In order to assist the jury to follow the complicated provisions of the Northern Territory Criminal Code, I prepared an aide-memoire.	I annex it to these reasons to illustrate how difficult was the task of the jury: see annexure 'A'.	Both the Crown Prosecutor and counsel for the accused agreed with the correctness of the matters contained in the aide-memoire.	It was not suggested that I left any issue to the jury that ought not to have been left to them.

The same jury panel, from which the Petersen jury was drawn, was required for two further trials immediately following the Petersen trial in the November sittings.

On 23 November, certain things were published by the
NT News in the Sunday Territorian.	The edition
of 23 November, immediately below the front page title, bore the words: "Published by the NT News".	I reproduce as annexure 'B' to these reasons a copy of the matter published in that newspaper to show its manner of display.	However because of the difficulty of reading the copy due its much reduced size, I set out the text of the publication hereunder:

"'I NEARLY DIED'

Stabbing victim sees red over verdict

The violent stabbing of a Darwin man and the subsequent acquittal of the assailant, has sparked an angry outcry by the victim and the NT Police Association.

NT Police Association President, Sergeant Gowan Carter said he is astonished at the verdict handed down in the Supreme Court on Friday.

Shane Julius'Petersen, 17, walked from Darwin's Supreme Court a free man after being acquitted of causing grievous bodily harm by stabbing footballer, Steven Liddell in the chest on February 20.

"It is amazing that a young fellow who admitted carrying a knife and using it gets away with it," Sergeant Carter said.

"It demonstrates one of the major problems with our jury systems.

"Furthermore, it demonstrates the sad state of our society that a youth should be carrying a knife at that time of night."

Cont, P2

Man stabbed four times in brawl: P2"

On page 2 of the newspaper appeared the following, closely associated with a story about a stabbed bouncer which can be seen in annexure 'B'.

"STABBING VICTIM HITS AT VERDICT
From, Pl

Petersen, 17, stabbed Liddle during an early morning fight outside Fannies disco on February 20.

The attack left Liddell, 20, in the intensive care unit of Royal Darwin Hospital for eight days with a punctured left lung and "life endangering" wounds to the heart.

Doctors said it was a "miracle" he survived the attack.

"I'm appalled that a judge and jury can be so blind," Steve said.

"It's bloody ridiculous.	He nearly killed me...I almost died.	"I was made to look like a hooligan and the guy who' stabbed me like an innocent teenager."

On the night in question, Liddell says he rushed to the aid of a friend who was involved in a fight with Petersen and another youth.

During the brawl, Petersen pulled a knife and stabbed Liddell.

Petersen said in court: "I carried the knife to scare people off, because I had been attacked before. It scared me to carry the knife."

Liddell's flatmate, David Atkinson, witnessed the attack.
"People shouldn't be allowed to carry knives around like that," Mr Atkinson said.
"The whole thing is a farce.	Petersen is allowed to walk away as if he is totally blameless.	We all feel as if we've been put on trial for being where we were on that night."
Liddell's friend, Robert Daniel Corrie, 20, was subpoenaed to give evidence in the trial.

When he didn't appear when called on Tuesday, he was arrested and ordered to spend the weekend in jail as "an example to those who failed to comply with subpoenas."
"Where's the justice in that," Steve said.

"Robert gets thrown in jail for something petty and a guy who almost killed me walks away scot free."
The road to recovery hasn't been an easy one for Steve.
"My only regret it (sic) that I had been drinking on the night," Steve said.

"It made me feel like scum to think I had been drinking and gotten into a brawl outside a pub.	But even if I was sober, I would have gotten into the fight to help my mate because Petersen and his mate were bashing him senseless.

"I dream about revenge.	Sometimes I wake up sweating thinking that I've just broken his legs.	I think to myself, 'I want to give him something to remember me for the rest of his life.	I'd like to hurt him as he's hurt me'."

The editorial on page 8 was in the following terms:

'Strange NT justice

A 17-year-old thug who stabbed a young man and kicked him in the head while he was laying (sic)
bleeding on the ground was acquitted on Friday by a Darwin jury.

NT Police association president, Sergeant Gowan Carter, is not the only one who is "astonished" by the result.
"It is amazing a young fellow who admitted to carrying a knife, used it, and then kicked a mortally wounded person in the head, gets away with it,• the Sergeant said.
Indeed it	is.
The jury's decision will do nothing to curb increasing thuggery in the streets.
Armed assaults are becoming more prevalent.
Breaking and entering is a plague the police do seem able to control (sic).
Violence has become a way of life in this Territory.	We suffer more violent crime per capita than Chicago.
It is time to get tough.
Hoodlums confuse kindness with weakness.	Their law is the law of the jungle.

Wrapping (sic) them over the knuckles with a feather means nothing to them.

But putting them behind bars for a long stretch means a great deal.

The courts should be in no doubt that the community expects it.'

On Monday 24 November 1986, the jury panel, which included' the jury that had sat on the Petersen trial, were present in court. I addressed them as follows:

Members of the jury panel, there is a matter about
which I have decided that something must be said in order to remove any possibility of a miscarriage of justice in the trial about to take place.

The local newspaper, the Sunday Territorian, yesterday published what can only be regarded as an assertion that the result of last week's trial, in which
12 of you were the jury, amounted to a miscarriage of justice.	It was implicit in the front page article by Chris Taylor, and in the editorial, that the accused was guilty of the crime with which he was charged, and that the evidence proved his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

How you feel, those of you who served on the last jury, as a result of that attack upon you, one can only guess.	It is as I explained to you in my summing up, no part of the judge's role to express an opinion one way or the other concerning the guilt of the accused, and I do not propose to do so now.

However, I assure every one of you who served on that jury, that it was clear to me that you paid close attention to the evidence, to the addresses of counsel, and to my summing up.	It was clear that you reached your verdict conscientiously and honestly.	The verdict was one it was open to you to reach.

For so long as trial by jury of our peers is the method of trial prescribed by law, no-one has a right to attack you, either directly or by implication.	It is unambiguously implicit in what appeared in the paper, that either your verdict was wrong and not reasonably open to you, or that I misdirected you in some way, or
both.

As to you, you must feel quite secure in the knowledge that according to the law of the land it was your function to pass judgment on Mr Petersen;	it was not	he function of the Sunday Territorian, nor that of
r Liddell, nor that of Sergeant Carter.	It is grossly improper for a newspaper, or a policeman, or the victim of an assault, or impugn the verdict of a jury reached after due process of law.	If I perpetrated some error, it is open to the Crown to appeal.

As long as a jury and not the local newspaper is required by law to judge the guilt or otherwise of persons charged with crime, the jury must have the resolve to resist the fear of improper attacks by the press, and by the police.	It does not hurt to remember that neither the Sunday Territorian, nor Sergeant Carter, were present when the stabbing occurred.	If they were, why didn't they come forward as witnesses at the trial?

The duly empanelled jury must be prepared to do its duty despite the possibility of ridicule by the press, or members of the police force.	I am more fortunate than you, members of the jury who served on the last trial, because I have the protection that every word that I uttered during the course of the trial is recorded, and is available for public scrutiny.	Next time you are considering the question of the accountability of judges, remember that.
The Sunday Territorian is at liberty to read the transcript of the trial;	the opening address of the Crown;	the whole of the evidence;	the closing address of counsel, and my own summing up.	If there was fault in the conduct of the trial, you can rest well assured that it will be ventilated by those whose business it is to do so.
You, members of the jury, are not so fortunate as
I.	Your deliberations are conducted in secret, and it is easy for the press, improperly, to attack you.	You can point to nothing in your defence, except perhaps to ask what it was you were thought to have gained by bringing in an untrue verdict.
You members of the jury came to this Supreme Court to sit in judgment on a fellow citizen.	You did not seek jury service.	The money you received for serving on the jury is hardly an adequate compensation for the disruption of your lives that jury service entails.
Most of you would have preferred to go about your own business.	You came here as a result of a legal obligation, and moved by a sense of duty as citizens.

To the extent that you feel offended by what was written in the local newspaper;	to the extent that you feel embarrassed in the presence of your friends, and to the extent that you must feel that your onerous function as jurors has been demeaned, I sympathise with each one of you.		One cannot pretend to expect better of the press.	But if Sergeant Carter said what he is reported to have said, he indeed should have known better.	He, like me, is bound to serve the law as it is whether he likes it or not.	Implicit in what he says also is the fact that your verdict was wrong.		In itself what a sergeant of police says about a verdict is of no importance, and I do not wish to give it more importance than it deserves, but when what the policeman says tends to a possible miscarriage of justice, something has to be said.

This brings me to the main reason that I decided I should take the unusual step of acknowledging what appeared in the local paper yesterday.

There is still at least one trial to be decided by you, the jurors of this panel, and the accused are here waiting to be tried.	It is essential that none of you who might be empanelled to decide the trial about to start, should feel in the least morally intimidated or threatened by anything said by the Sunday Territorian, or by Sergeant Carter.	Neither the newspaper reporter, nor Sergeant Carter, has any right to induce you to find an accused person guilty of a crime, if in your opinion the evidence does not establish that person's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
You must act, as I'm sure you will, without fear that a verdict conscientiously arrived at will earn the scorn of a newspaper, or a policeman, or of anyone else. If despite what I have said there are any of you who feel that as a result of what appeared in yesterday's Sunday Territorian, you may be unable to bring a completely impartial judgment to bear, you may apply to be excused.	If not, we will get on with the business at hand.' (my emphasis)

On 25 November the NT News published a report of my remarks of 24 November: see annexure 'C'.	I also set out the text of the report:

'Nader criticises paper's report

Supreme Court Judge, Mr Justice Nader, criticised a weekend newspaper report and editorial yesterday which he said asserted a Darwin jury had performed a miscarriage of justice in acquitting a youth on Friday.

He also attacked NT Police Association secretary, Sergeant Gowan Carter, who he said should have known better than to criticise publicly a jury's verdict after a trial.

Judge Nader said there was an "unambiguous implication" in The Sunday Territorian articles that the jury's verdict was wrong or that members were misdirected in the case of Shane Julius Petersen, 17.

Grounds
Petersen was found not guilty of causing grievous harm by stabbing footballer Steven Liddell during a fight outside Fannies disco on February 20.
He fought the charge on the grounds of self-defence.
Judge Nader was commenting yesterday to the full jury panel for the present criminal sittings, including the 12 people who sat on Petersen's trial.

Before a jury was selected for a new trial yesterday, he said he was prepared to excuse any member who felt affected as a possible jurist because of what was printed in The Sunday Territorian.
"It is essential none of you should feel morally intimidated by anything said by this newspaper," he said.
Judge Nader said it was grossly improper and not the function of The Sunday Territorian, Mr Liddell or Police Association secretary, Sergeant Gowan Carter, to impugn the verdict of a jury after a trial.
"It was clear to me you paid close attention to the evidence, addresses and final summing up," Judge Nader told jury members.
"It was clear you conscientiously and honestly reached your verdict and that it was a verdict which was open for you to reach.
"No one has a right to attack you for it."

He said one could not expect to think better of the press but Sergeant Carter should have known better.

Witnesses

"Neither The Sunday Territorian nor Sergeant Carter was present when the stabbing occurred," Judge Nader said.

"If they were, they should have been witnesses at the trial." '

On the same day a cartoon was published in the NT News obviously relating to Petersen who was alleged to have stabbed Liddle outside a nightclub in the early hours of the morning.	A copy of the cartoon is annexure 'D' to these reasons.

On 30 November, the Sunday Territorian continued publishing matter related to the Petersen Case.	Again, I annex copies of the material to show the manner in which the matter was displayed (see annexure 'E') and set out the text of some of it in the body of these reasons:

'LETTERS
Implications horrifying
Sir,

I am horrified at the implications arising from the Sunday Territorian report on Steve Liddle.

When the victim of a vicious attack could be seen as being the guilty party and the attacker goes free the police must wonder how they can properly do their job.
I now suppose that if I surprised.a thief in my

house and broke his arm then I would be charged with assault and causing grievous bodily harm?

GEORGE BROWN DARWIN

SHOCKED BY DECISION
Sir,

I have never written to a newspaper before but I feel compelled to do so now to express my shock at the decision to let a youth who stabbed someone else go scott free.

What's happening to our judicial system?	Can't they see this decision will only encourage others to try the same thing?

My family and I were left cold by the incident. thinking that perhaps we were being unreasonable I asked several of my friends what they thought of the case and they all agreed they were shocked.

I always thought a knife could be classified as a concealed weapon.	It is a dreadful indictment of our society that young people are allowed to carry those weapons and use them fearlessly, knowing they can scream self defence.

How long before someone carrying a gun appears in court crying the same reasons of self defence for wounding someone.	Perhaps they can even justify putting another bullet in the person because they thought they were going to get up for more.

Sergeant Carter must be applauded for having the courage to speak up.
Name withheld by request NIGHTCLIFF'

On 4 December, the NT News published the following report of an address by Mr Hogan to the Confederation of Industry and Commerce.

'Association's move criticised

Any attempt to extend the laws of contempt could lead to circumstances where villains were protected by the courts from public exposure, the managing editor of the Northern Territory News, Mr John Hogan, said today.

Addressing the Confederation of Industry and Commerce, Mr Hogan criticised the NT Criminal Law Association for advocating a closer examination of the role of the media in the criminal justice system,

The association has called on the Attorney-General, Mr Daryl Manzie, to investigate whether reports carried in the Sunday Territorian about the acquittal of a Darwin youth who used a knife in a street brawl outside a city nightclub last year were in contempt of court.

He said the association, which is chaired by Darwin barrister, Mr Colin McDonald, was intent on restricting freedom of speech and the fundamental right of people to know what is being said by whom and why.

"To define contempt in respect of restrictions on the reporting of criminal cases after the fact, beyond the rules which now exist to protect a fair trial, would be intolerable and lead inevitably to capricious censorship.
"The decision is a matter for Government, but I hope it doesn't come to that.

Threat

"The pressure we are seeing is no more than an overt threat from an individual claiming to represent an association I am told has not been properly constituted."
Mr Hogan said there was no dispute about the facts in the case.
"The victim was stabbed and then brutally kicked in the head as he lay bleeding in the gutter.	The assailant pleaded self-defence and was acquitted,
"I must say I can quite understand the victim's motivation in speaking out in criticism.	The NT Police Association did the same.
"The Sunday Territorian reported what they said and expressed some further quite proper concern about street violence.

.	"It is my belief that these matters of great public interest and concern may be discussed and criticised after the case is over and it is not contempt of court."

Mr Hogan said Mr Justice Nader's criticism of the Sunday Territorians' articles was "quite astonishina" and a worrying development for the community.'	,

The following transcript was made of a recording of part of Mr Hogan's speech to the Confederation of Industry and Commerce on 4 December:

The other day a judge of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory said some trenchant and quite astonishing things from the Bench.	No sooner had  I formed the view that his Honour must have lost his temper than the Criminal Law Association of the Northern Territory, an organization I must confess I had never heard of before, announced its support for the judge's views, a quite pompous statement virtually urging the Attorney-General to move against the Sunday Territorian for contempt of court.	Now we - we take that most seriously.	Contempt is a very serious matter.	The newspaper had the temerity to report and comment on the verdict in the jury trial.	There was no dispute about the facts and most of you who do read the Sunday Territorian would recall the story.		The victim was stabbed outside a nightclub and then, while he lay bleeding in the gutter, his assailant rushed over and brutally kicked him in the head.	The assailant pleaded self defence and he was acquitted.		Now I make no comment at all about the summing up which the jury received but I must say that I can quite understand the victim's motivation in speaking out in criticism when he saw the individual go free.		The Northern Territory Police Association, you may recall, was most unhappy about it and with good reason.	The Sunday Territorian reported what they said and expressed some further quite proper concern about street violence editorially.	It should be noted that the same issue of the paper had reported another knife attack on a bouncer in a nightclub.	It is my belief that these matters of great public interest and concern may be discussed and criticised and once the case is over it is not contempt of court and I shall be most surprised if the
Attorney-General thinks it is either.	The more

pernicious threat is in the Criminal Law Association's call for the role of the media in the criminal justice system to be looked at - looked at more closely.	There is the clear intent to circumscribe freedom of speech, your fundamental right to know what is being said, by whom and why.

On 5 December I made remarks to counsel who had appeared in the Petersen Case. I set forth the whole of the transcript of that occasion:

HIS HONOUR:	Mr Crown, it just happens I think that
- were you in the Petersen case?

MR ELLIS: HIS HONOUR: MR ADAMS:

Yes, Your Honour. And you were too?
That's correct, Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:	It just happens that both of you were in that case.	You've heard the offensive remarks made about the court by Mr Hogan, don't you  think  you two have a duty to say something about the manner about the conduct of  that trial?	Particularly you, Mr Ada.ins, it		was your client that's been abused in the press, and you sit quietly  by and allow the court to try to defend the position of your client. Now, I don't want you to say anything,  just  sit down  and  let's get on with this case.	You just consider whether you have a duty to say anything or not.	Yes, Mr Crown, and you too.

MR ADAMS:	With respect, Your Honour, I have considered that and it's - my opinion, with respect, differs to Your Honour's, that I have a duty to remain silent and to keep quiet.

HIS	HONOUR:	Yes, well, you may	think	that.	Sit down	
	please.	Yes, Mr Crown.				
MR ELLIS:	Thank you, Your Honour.	Does Your Honour want me to touch upon that now?
HIS HONOUR:	No, I don't want you to, I've said what I've had to say and I propose to say nothing more. You know the judge is in a defenceless position when people start speaking on the radio and so

forth.	Someone has got to say something.	Do you think the trial was improperly conducted?

MR ELLIS:	I have already said that, Your Honour that I indicated to Your Honour on a previous	' occasion that I didn't believe that any criticism could be levelled at the manner in which the trial was conducted, and I stand by those earlier comments.

HIS HONOUR:	Thank you, for that.	Now let's get on with this case.

Mr Crown, I didn't want to enter into a public debate about this matter.	What I said to the jury, I said for the jury's sake.	I said it so that what was published in the paper would not bring about a miscarriage of justice; that's the only reason I said it. (my emphasis)

Apparently someone from the bar has, as he has a perfect right to do, raised the matter publicly, but that has provoked Mr Hogan to make offensive remarks about me and I find it very hurtful.	I have tried to do my duty as a judge to the very, very best of my ability.	I have invited Mr Hogan and the other people from that paper to read the transcript and then to intelligently and with a level headed approach to things, raise any matter that they think was wrong in the conduct of the trial.	That has not been done.

All Mr Hogan has seen fit to do is describe me as having lost my temper and to have made disturbing remarks or something to that effect.	I find that really is gutter journalism. It's gutter journalism from what I regard as a very low grade journal.	Thank you.

And I'm surprised that the solicitors involved in this case didn't see that they had some duty to their professional integrity to say something about the conduct of the trial.	It shouldn't be left to the bench.	Someone should have intelligently dealt with the irrational and sensational matter appearing in that paper.

If it had appeared in a - I didn't deal with it for contempt of court because I thought that it could be dealt with properly by simply exhorting the jury not to be influenced by it and to do their jury (sic) and not to feel under threat from the paper to find someone guilty, for example, when they, in conscience and according to their oath, felt that they were not guilty.

That's what the laws provide.	they provide for trial by jury.	Perhaps we could abandon trial by jury;	perhaps instead of doing that we could have a phone in to the ABC or we could have perhaps - those people who publish that newspaper could perhaps run a bit of a poll around the place and decide whether a person's guilty or not guilty.	We can dispense with trial by jury altogether.	It wouldn't worry me in the least.	We have enough civil work to do, perhaps the criminal work could be handed over to the NT News or the Sunday Territorian.	Yes, thank you, go ahead.

MR ELLIS:	What I wanted to say, Your Honour, is that - there's a number of things;	the first is that so far as I am concerned as the Crown Prosecutor, the trial was run in a manner which was above reproach by all concerned, including those members of the jury, apparently, who gave the matter, so far as anyone in court is concerned, gave the matter close attention.

That there were a number of difficulties which were raised in relation to the law, which have - no fault can be lain on either Your Honour or counsel, or indeed any difficulty the jury may have had in relation to it - that I believe that the paper in this case - the papers generally have a right to report and to criticise.	We, the courts, are open to criticism, but at the same time they ought to exercise that right in an informed manner.

That so far as Sergeant Gowan Carter is concerned, he, not being a police officer, but speaking for the association, probably is in a similar position;	he's entitled to view his opinions, but at the same time perhaps everyone should accept that they may well be subjective.
I'm sure he's the first one who would agree that his views are subjective, and that when he's reported perhaps papers have an obligation to point out that he is in a subjective position, as indeed was the victim, Mr Liddell.	They are entitled to their criticisms, but at the same time for the sake of fairness, their subjective position ought be more plainly made out.
That so far as subsequent matters, it's my belief that one of the problems was that the jury panel had not finished its stint of duty - - -

HIS HONOUR:	That was the problem, Mr Crown;	that was the problem that nobody seems to be debating the fact that that very jury had further cases to decide. (my emphasis)

MR ELLIS:	Yes.	Your Honour, that was the very thing that was in my mind -

HIS HONOUR:	That doesn't seem to have been grasped by anybody.	Anyone that knows me knows that I would be the last person in the world to put any fetters on the press as regards what they can say about legal proceedings.	If remarks about that
trial had been made coolly and properly at a proper time, after that jury panel had finished its duty, I could not have complained, and I would never wish to utter a word about it.	But if the paper does something which can bring about ·a miscarriage of justice by putting a lay jury in fear of ridicule by the press, then the bench must be fearless in standing up to such "journalism".

MR ELLIS:	Yes, Your Honour, I accept that, and I don't know what the paper's state of knowledge was, and that was where my comment of it being informed
- it's part of their duty, I think, to inform themselves of the position that we don't have jury panels who come in every week.	It's a panel that comes in for a month, stays serving for a month, and - - -

HIS HONOUR:	One can assume that the NT News would know that, Mr Crown.	If they didn't know that then really they - I mean, they usually - the young lady down there with the glasses on, she's in court every day.		They must know what happens in these courts, and before her, Mr White used to come and sit here day after day.
MR ELLIS:	It's a different paper I understand, Your Honour, it certainly wasn't this reporter.

HIS HONOUR:	Well that's what I was told.	Mr Hogan seems to have taken up the cudgels for the -

MR ELLIS:	I believe he's probably the editor of both, but so far as those who appear regularly before Your Honour, they don't, as I understand it, work for the Sunday paper.

HIS HONOUR:	No.	But at any event, its artificial to pretend that Sunday Territorian ought not to know that the jury panel is empanelled for a month.
It's been going on here for many many years indeed.

MR ELLIS:	Yes, that's the established practice, I accept that Your Honour, and it was that that was on my mind when I stood aside all those who had been called for last weeks jury who'd served the

jury before, not because I didn't believe they couldn't find a proper verdict, but to relieve them
of the pressures that had been placed upon them over that weekend.

HIS HONOUR: MR ELLIS:

By that article.

By that article, yes, Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:	As a matter of  fact, you see, there were intelligent things the press could have said. For example, they could have said: "Now, why did a jury - can acquit that person in those circumstances?	Could it be because of the difficulty in construing the Criminal Code?	Could it be because there are too many objective and subjective defences built into the code, which a
judge is obliged to put to the jury?	Could it have been, for example, that Mr Hogan, or whoever is responsible for their editorial, should have said: 'let's look at that, let's see if we take a different view on it', which they're entitled to express - the parliamentarians or the government shouldn't be lobbied to change the law, instead of simply abusing a jury system and suggesting to the courts that the community, for whom that paper purports to speak" - and that's arrogance, is it not, to assume the right to speak on behalf of the community? - "should say to me and to the court in general that the community will not tolerate that sort of behaviour", or words to that effect.

Why instead of directing their remarks in that sensational way, in such a cheap attack on the courts, should they not have directed their researches and efforts into the real reason why they may believe people are being unjustifiably acquitted, if such was the case;	and I have said it then and I say now, I won't buy into the merits of a finding, because it's not the judge's role to do that.
MR ELLIS:	Nor the Crown's, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR:	Nor the Crown's.	But the other thing is this, that it may be that it ought to be unlawful to carry a knife and if someone is ultimately injured by your carrying a knife, irrespective of how it came about, but that's a matter for the law makers, it's not a matter for the courts.	That doesn't seem to be understood, there is no informed debate on the matter.
MR ELLIS:	Yes, Your Honour, I accept that, Your

Honour, and it was with that in mind that I did make those comments - I forget the day, but after Your Honour had raised it, I did inform Your Honour that I didn't believe there had been any impropriety.

HIS HONOUR:	I would not have said another word  except that Mr Hogan saw fit to make an attack on me, a personal attack on me, which I resent deeply. I had said what I wanted to say to the jury panel and that was the end of it as far as I was concerned, but Mr Hogan saw fit to make a public speech yesterday knowing, or believing that I could not or would not reply to it.

MR ELLIS:	Your Honour, I am privy to the article that was in the paper yesterday, but I didn't hear the radio.

HIS HONOUR:	Well, I heard him speak on the radio this morning and on the news last night.	I recognised his voice, unmistakable, I know the man personally.	I am surprised that he made such an attack on me.

MR ELLIS:	Your Honour, as I say, I can't comment on that as I didn't hear it.

MR ADAMS: HIS HONOUR:

Your Honour, might I say something? Yes, of course, you can.

MR ADAMS:	Your Honour, first of all, at no stage did the defence ever have any query with the way Your Honour conducted the case;	whether the verdict had been for or against Mr Petersen, there would have been no thoughts of any appeal.		And secondly, and I don't propose to use any names, but my wife met one of the members of the jury panel after the trial on a business association completely independent of the trial - she has a business of her own - and that jury person - I will not use their name although I do know it - said that they were most pleased with Your Honour's summing up, it was of great assistance to the jury. She spoke informally on behalf of everybody.		They said that the law was complex, and they found Your Honour's summing up a great deal of help.	That's all I wish to say, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR:	Thank you, Mr Adams, I appreciate that.

On 6 December, the NT News published two letters.	The writer whose name was withheld was a policeman with qualifications as a lawyer.	The other correspondent, now Solicitor-General for the Northern Territory, was then President
of the NT Bar Association.	His letter was edited by the NT News. The letters are reproduced as annexure 'F'.	However, I also set out the text of the unedited letter of Mr Pauling Q.C.:

"Dear Sir,

Concerning a much publicised acquittal under the banner "Association's move criticised" (N.T. News 4/12/86 p.3) you report your managing editor as saying "The Association, which is chaired by Darwin barrister, Mr Colin McDonald was intent on restricting freedom of speech and the fundamental right of people to know what is being said by whom and why".	That was a stupid comment unworthy of Mr Hogan.	The principle being upheld is that a jury upon oath are bound to come to a verdict according to the evidence.	No doubt they did. Your newspaper and your sister paper The Sunday Territorian chose to attack directly or indirectly the jurors who did their duty.	That is shameful.

If newspapers were anything like the journals which followed criminal trials in detail last century there may be some reason (but not justification) for questioning of a jury's verdict.	It may even  be proper to express some disquiet.	But the N.T. News and other presses in this country are drawn to sell papers by sensationalisation.	Balanced reporting is a thing of the past.	Yet to uphold one freedom you wish to destroy others.	The late Mr. Justice Murphy was moved to remind us of the great value of the jury system.	You are bent upon a path of destroying it for ill conceived notions of freedom of speech.	You do not uphold freedom by destroying a vital part of it.	Can't you see that?	The jury had to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was not acting in reasonable self defence.
They must not have been so satisfied.

Your newspapers reporting of the matter was nothing short of sensational.	The jury had the opportunity (denied to your readers) of knowing all the facts. (They were directed as to the law by a very experienced

Judge.)		They made their decision.	Don't try and sell newspapers by attacking (as you are) the jury and the jury system.	You do great harm in the guise of doina good.	You would give away a great freedom because y u wrongly think another is under attack.	Think again.
Your attack is utterly wrong.

You also claimed that the Criminal Law Association was not properly constituted.	I moved its formation.	The Solicitor-General seconded it.		'.l.'hat motion was unanimously passed by the biggest gathering of Northern Territory lawyers ever held.	Its patron is Sir Harry Gibbs, Chief Justice of the High Court.	As usual you are talking through your hat.

Finally, Mr Hogan attacked Mr. Justice Nader describing his comments as "astonishing" and on radio on Friday morning saying much worse.	Since you plainly do not understand what is at stake your ignorance may excuse you, but you owe the Judge and the jury panel a sincere apology.	Anything less would show your contempt for the freedoms you claim to espouse.•

I have expressed the opinion privately from time to time that the NT News is a newspaper of poor standard by
comparison with the leading metropolitan dailies in other parts of Australia.	I have occasionally expressed that opinion in private conversation with members of the legal profession.	The opinion has generally been enthusiastically reciprocated.	I  have made more than one disparaging reference in those private conversations to an anonymous gossip column published in the Sunday Territorian
under the name 'Bushranger':	not the trivial
harmless kind of gossip column with which we are all familiar in other places, but a serious column which specialises in the dissemination of rumour, sometimes mischievous or hurtful.

The poor conduct of the NT News in connexion with the Petersen Case, about which I have
conversed with others, speaks for itself.	No amount of cant about the 'fundamental right tc know' can justify the attack on a jury which formed part of a jury panel with two criminal trials yet to determine.	No-one would deny the right, perhaps the duty, of the NT News or anyone else to
express concern about the law, procedural or substantive, the conduct of a judge or any other matter affecting the administration of justice.	But, when comment is made in highly emotive terms and may possibly affect the course of a trial, it is reprehensible.

I have also complained to friends that when serious questions have arisen in the Northern Territory affecting the administration of justice, they have been often ignored or trivialized by the NT News.	The question whether the Criminal Code itself may be the cause of problems has never been seriously examined by that newspaper.	This is not the place to ventilate the question, but it is possible that juries may sometimes be confused by the complexity of directions often demanded by the Code:		the so-called objective and subjective tests for the states of mind of an accused person are frequently bewildering, yet the Code requires that those tests be applied.	But, the NT
News and the Sunday Territorian have been much
more likely to produce an emotional editorial outburst like

the one that appeared under the heading Strange NT

justice on 23 November 1986 (supra) than to grapple seriously with the possible real causes of the perceived problem.

Late in 1986, when concern was being expressed in some quarters of society at the, then, proposed take-over of the Herald and Weekly Times group of newspapers, the level of debate in the NT News was typified by its
categorizing critics of the take over as either socialist or communist 'whackers'.	I privately expressed disappointment that our local daily should so trivialize the debate.

Some years ago, following a rape trial, the NT News, having expressed its satisfaction with the head sentence of 9 years imprisonment imposed by me, affected
editorial concern that the non-parole period I had fixed was too short	see R v Tambling, sentenced on 7 November 1983. Shortly afterwards, I took the trouble to explain carefully the workings of the relevant legislation in open court, for the benefit of the NT News whose reporter was
present.	I explained that it was an inescapable effect of the legislation that the non-parole period, in order tc comply with that legislation, had to be considerably shorter than the remission release date.	I explained how the legislation worked.	Nothing of that explanation was published.		It was left to appear that the court had let the

community do;;n by excessive lenience.	I expressed some criticism to friends in the legal profession on that occasion.

There are other, more general, reasons why I have regarded the NT News as lacking any real quality as a newspaper.	However, as far as I can remember, I have not expressed those reasons to anyone who would have breached my confidence.		I cannot help adding that I am personally disappointed if it is true that members of the legal profession have reported my private conversations to the
NT News or its solicitors.

I made the statement referred to.

What those who may know me may think I do not know, however, if I had continued to sit on the present appeal I would have been scrupulously fair to the NT News.

THE LAW

The relevant law is stated in Livesey v New South Wales Bar Association (1983) 151 CLR 293-4: '...a judge should not sit to hear a case if in all the circumstances the parties or the public might entertain a reasonable apprehension that he might not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the resolution of

the question involved in it.'	In The Queen v Watson;
Ex parte Armstrong (1976) 136 CLR 263 it was said:	'If fair minded people reasonably apprehend or suspect that the tribunal had prejudged the case, they cannot have confidence in the decision.	To repeat the words of Lord Denning M.R.•.. "Justice must be rooted in confidence: and confidence is destroyed when right-minded people go away thinking:	The judge was
biased."'	The Court in Livesey's Case expressed a preference to avoid the use of the idea of suspicion of bias because it sometimes conveys unintended nuances of meaning: p294.	The principles expressed in those cases were applied by me in
The Queen v Cavit and Another; Ex parte Rosenfield	(1985)
33 NTR	29.	The Court in Livesey's Case also said, however, "On the other hand, it would be an abdication of judicial function and an encouragement of procedural abuse for a judge to adopt the approach that he should automatically disqualify himself whenever he was requested by one party so to do on the grounds of a possible appearance of pre-judgment or bias, regardless of whether the other party desired that the matter be dealt with by him as the judge to whom the hearing of the case had been entrusted by the ordinary procedures and practice of the particular court.": p294.

CONCLUSION

Considering the facts of this matter in the light of the applicable law, I formed the opinion that some persons might

entertain a reasonable apprehension, albeit wrongly, that I might not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the resolution of the appeal.	Accordingly I have disqualified myself from sitting. It may be that the natural urge to join in conversations with persons, even professional colleagues, about matters of such universal interest as the quality of one's daily paper should be restrained.	At least, if one expresses adverse opinions, as I have, the risk of disqualification may have to be accepted.

'A'

R. v. Petersen

Aide Memoire to Jurv

To prove the crime of unlawfully causing grievous harm, the Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt each of the following two essential elements:

l.	The accused caused grievous harm to Liddell.

2.	In doing so the accused acted unlawfully.

The questions you must each ask yourself, therefore, are:

Am I satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caused grievous harm to Liddell?

Arn I satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that in doing so the accused acted unlawfully?

2.

Unlawfully means without justification or excuse.

Justification

The application of force that causes grievous harm is justified if:

The force used by the accused was used to defend himself from an assault where the nature of the assault being defended is such as to cause the person using the force reasonable apprehension that death or grievous harm will result, and

The force used by the accused was not unnecessary force.

Unnecessary force is force that the accuse6 knew was unnecessary for and disproportionate to the occasion, or force that an ordinary person, in similar circumstances to those in which the accused was, would have regarded as unnecessary for and disproportionate to the occasion.

Excuse

The accused is excused from criminal responsibility for his conduct unless it was intended and the grievous harm was either intended or foreseen as a possible consequence of his conduct.

If the accused did not intend to cause grievous harm to Liddell but foresaw grievous harm as a possible consequence

•

3.

of his conduct and if, in all the circumstances, a reasonable person in similar circumstances to those in which the accused was, foreseeing· the possibility of causing grievous harm, would have proceeded with that conduct, he is excused from criminal responsibility.

Grievous harm means an injury of such a nature as to be
likely to endanger the life of Liddell.

iii

tl>fttltlll 'fiilrl IUCUU:11

,J

AICotTA ,
U!O,ttU
tlli'!ltT Al
TTLrY:S!Ol

Surt.lay, November 23. 19&5	60c

--·

-
a---

!

'lbe violent stabbing of a Ds.Tl'lin man a.nd the subsequent acquittal of the a.ssaUsnt. has Epariieil an angry emery by the victiJa 1111.Dd the l\,"'T Police Association.
!\   ..?olice Ass.:>clation Preside:1t, Sergeant
Go\i;'ID> Carter "'1.ld be i. astonished at the verdict handed down 1n tlle Supreme Court on Friday.	·
Shane Julius Pet,,raon, 17. walked from
D&r,,.in '& Supreme Court a free man al'l.er beini;	F
1 acqu.1tted of causin!; gre\ bod.ily ha.nn by
stabbing footh"11er.St,,venLlddelJ in t.>-te chest
on Febn1ary X..

By CHRIS
TAYLOR

··Jt iE artl&ZJnj; that a young fello.. Who ad­ mitted carrytnr a kn.ii e: li.nd usm:; it gets

••·ay	"·lth It,"
Sergeant Carter wd.
..lt   demonstrate ont of the major prot­ lems ,it.1th our Ju;:,· :.ys­ terra:

•,.-urtherrnore, it tlemonstr,,tes tM sad st.;. of our P-'JCiet\" u-.a: a voutr, should bf' a.. f a knift et that t;.me o!' night •·
-C.11t,h

s
•

--

.	''
---,,/'

Aftt1' .,.,.,, ehtn.,r: tbie mu
..,,8Plllalltmrc:11tm&o
S.."Pe, lrl:loblc lln:lill:e cul.
"11_.,.Dm!.lb&I.I••tbt­

IIGU't ...... tat. ..

-

_..,_

•,.n. ... e,amJt&od ...
llt&b MIUDdl,	...
&llepd

.....

ud rwau.ed I'd t:iemi

at\&U:er ..,. ,,._

Catholic			
land sale

-A.Hui    'DO    p,eopl
oompetollld at an
IDI' 2f:  ttlk,,tment. on a
u b&	--.i..i
-ftV-.kJ-lblA,Ot..
'hie MCUorll mk! ID
.t.•..•,.•t•.-ohcluntor ...
SU   0-00   &ad

T-.i.nt	lWLJ'1t:JI	If it's good enough for Australia Ill

-tllleehlst."'BqU.

--

...............,..-,	csD

DANSKA
KITCHENS

'

ader criticises
paper's report

Mr Jusik:e Nader
Yardlctand lh&t It wu a verdict which wu opan
,or you to rsacb.
"Noone bu  a t	to
attack you for It.'
He aid one could not expect to think belterol' the preu but llerge&nt Carter abould bave knownbetlar.
Witnesses
"Neither 7be Terrltorlan	nor llergNllt Carter WU preaenl when tbe atab­ b1ng occurred,.. Judp
Ji&darll&ld.
"U they wen, Ibey 11bould llav• Ileen w,mratrz at the trlal."

;z:.

li'fftE. sw

mm

m

l'Ll SEE YALATER MVM, /'M JI/ST GOING FCJ/?A{J(,1/ET

71-/E NIGHT SPOTS

RAGE RROVND

\

,i;,

-

 	...

\

I

J)

'	E'

Jmplicafions .homfyin.9
1IIR
l am horritled <at 1he iropllcat!anB IRl'la!ng

tram the Bm>day

Uddle.

report on lll$ve

Whl,nthe Victim of a VicioUa attack ttAl!d be
_,, as'being the guilty party andthe attacker goes tree the pollce must watlder how they can properly -do their job.
I now IIUJlpoee tba.t1f I surprised a thlef Jnmy

charg8d ...W, .e..osatll\ .a,,d «a11,slng «revious

bouae &>d b?oke his arm 1he:! l 'WOUld be

bodily .harm?

·

'SHOCKED BY DECISION

'SIR
1 have never written to a new1,,. paper before but I feel comi>elled to do ao now to express my .iaock at the decls!on to let a you'bi who Blabbed 90meone else go acott tree. Wha.t•• happenlng to our jucllcia.J

is a ,dre&dful llldlctment of c,ur 80ciety tba.t young people -are aJ. lowed to carry those weapons and use them :teulessly, lmowmg they can scream sell defence.
Bcrw long before IIDmeone carry.

-Catch

:Ing a  gun  appear,; In  court crying

systeni? Can'I they see this de­ clalon will only encourage others to try the same thing? ..
lo!.y family and I were le!'! cold by the lllcldent. Tblnking that i>erh&ps we were being unreasollable I
asked aevera.l of my trlend£ what
they thought of the cue and they all
,	llgreed they were ahocked:
''•w'  , I always thought a.lrnl!e could be
clus1fied a.s a concealed weapon. It

the 6-6-me re&sons of sell defence for WO\lllding BOmeone. Perha.ps they can even justify putting another bullet lll the J)enO!l. because they "thought they were _gnlng to pt up for mo:re.
Sergeant Carter must be ap­ plauded for having the cour-age to apeak up.
:Name wllbheld by n,que,.t
l'ilGH'J'CUFF

'Early Bird' t
andAlice

POLICE SWOOP •CONSULATE SCARE

Depart Monday, Wednesda

'MELBOUE.NE: Police

cla.sbed	MELBOURNEa: "l'be 'Turkiab Oob-

Arrive Alice Spri

IOJ!&te _ bit by

bomb blast l&st

wt1h plckelen :yenenlay .,. Vic- lkmday _ ,... p,11terday the centre

1ona•a.,..,,._•111rike-redtlafitlh efa	bomb_,.., iD the Melboarne

Ansett N.T. presents th

·-...ell.	-barb of8oaUl Tarra.
Police """'°peel Oil lbe11,,yal Mel-	Police Did  a tar   tllda    a-tum in
..,,,,.,. llOIIJ)lts.l to  remove :S  pick-    Tooru: _.,   •   before the driver left
-elel'II plazmlng to block eleve!! JhM,n   a,,, oar- iD the  middle  of the road

from Darwin to Alice Sprin
started early -  anive early.

1mcb from leaving 1be Bospllal'• abont U.SOpm. Police poAbecl the

Plusif youstay in Alice Sp

partef apo!lceoffeaslve to prevent a. lllde of ti>e J'06d and cordoned off the

eeatnl l!Den oemoe. '!M move waa j,-e!low Soham two door 8edAn to the

be eligible for a reduction of$1

rei-t  -of   la.at   Tbn."!ld&y'• Wide-  ..,._	_	_

fares!

spreMI  dlsmptloo  by  plcketen to   'l'ber-e	,re ao fnrtber delall• at llll•

bollpllal UDen dellveriM.	-,:-e.

For bookings and informa

--------=-=-----------

ations on 80 3333 or your Arn

1111.

,  December  6, 1986

'	f	I

S

Legitimate	comment

ins,
!d lose

I R , A Supreme Court trial has re­ sulted In seven.I cltl· uns having !}\eir say In the Northern Territory

ILETTERS	TneErii
CP0Po.r(300	

NTeewmstoannadn.the   Sunday   h=•d	to    =-	• e

fro m	ecuted for contempt In

Views of the NT Cn.ui­ nal Law Associ.atJon. I ltnow that not all mem­ bers were con.suited be-· tore he acted on cur behal!.

istitutions,  Mr  Harris has not
,:plained why everybody even
imotely   connected   with the
-oblem  In Darwin Is pressing
,r a residential Institution to ve semi-permanent respite om  the  24-hours-a-day care
,ey are forced to give their indicaoped.
Onl\ ,iose who have talked

NowMrC.McDonald error, which ls why we relation to the Cham-
have a Court or Crimi- berlaln case?

to

has asked the Attorney-   na1 Appeal and a ''" h	-
Genen.I     consider lay-		•...,       ,ue  Supreme Court ls Ing   cha.rges    for   con-   Court.		a public Institution and tempt or  court  ._.  a  These courts a.re fre.   the  Judges   a.re  public result or  those  corn-  quently  the  venue  for   officers:  as such,  their ments.	detailed criticisms or actions a.re legitimately
I   am   most  disturbed   judges'   cllrectlons  and   the subject ol reports In that public scrutiny  and     juries' verdicts.	the media and or cam- discussion or the ad- .Does Mr McDonald ment by the public.
mlnl.str&tlon or justice propose that l>arrlsters This function of the

:Nameandaddreu withheld by l"eqtleSL [The 1'Tlter It a mem­ ber or tilf- KT Crimma.J
Law Auocl&l!on.J
Missing persons
SIR, The Austn.llan In­
stitute   or Criminology

ith tlrese people can under­

could be crushed In this who argue that the de- press ls one of the Ilg·

la	preparing an

and the heavy burden they we borne for years, often lthout even the shortest
·eak.
It Is a scenario laden with rtentia I tragedy as the burden omes too great, as nerves
·ack under the constant strain 1d people seek the only way rt. Ii has happened. A despair­ g mother put her child in a car id drove over  the  Fannie Bay
ltfs not so long ago.

way.	clslon of a.lower court ls	nlficant distinctions be-
I know or no better wrong be  prosecuted  tween  democracy  and  system for the determl-    for contempt?	.	tot.alltarl&nlsm.
nation or guilt than trial		Are the recent public	Persons who cannot by jury.	comment•   ■o   much   tolerate  objective   re- It may be the best worse  than  the  many  view  of their  actions system, but It Is not thing! said about the are probably tempera­ necessa.rlly perfect.	conduct of the OuUTi- mentally unsuited to Ju-
No Institution created berlaln trial, that pros- cllclal office.

'Shameful' attack

a.nd  administered   by   ecutlon ls now merited,	Mr McDonald pur­ hurnans can be gua.ran. when no one was pros• ported to represent the

Australasia-wide study of procedures, policies, practices and methods aimed at tracing and otherwise aaslstlng In the locating and ldent­ ltying missing persons
or all    kinds,  from  ch!J.
clren to senior citizens. The Institute ls aware  of the considerable con­ tribution made by pub­ lic, private and volun­ teer agencies In this field and we would lll<e

)isturbing
What makes the situation In 9rwfn so disturbing is the fact at there are suitable facilities eady here -   a cottage not in "' at the Harry Giese Centre. All f\ 1 Is needed Is a com­ odity''yfle Government seems luctant to give - money.
The Chief Minister must get iorities Into perspective.
The   Government   probably II gain votes from the privi· ed section of the sporting
>rid which has had $6 million
.rlshed on It but It will cer· inly get none from the mln­ ity   group   facing    years  of
artbreak, tied  night  and day

IR , Concerning a much publicised acquittal under the banner, "As· aoc!atlon'a move criticised" (North­ ern Territory News, December 4) you report your managing editor as saying :"The association wa.s Intent on restricting freedom orspeech and the fundamental right ol people to mow what Is being said by whom

S

and why."
. The principle being upheld Ls that a jury upon oath ls bowid to come to a verdict accord.Ing to the evidence.
No doubt they did.
Your sister paper, the Sunday Terr/tor-Jan, chose to attack cllrectly or Indirectly the jurors whodid their duty. That ls shameful.
U newspapers were anything like the joUrnals which followed criminal 1rlalB ln detail last century there maybe BOme reason (but not justifi­ cation) tor questioning or a jUry'a

destroying It for fll-concelved no­
tions of freedom of speech.
y OU do not uphold freedom by destroying a vital i,art of lt. Can•t you see tlmt?
The jury had to be satisfied beyond a reasonable daubt that the accused wa.s not acting In rea.sona.ble aell­ delence.They must not have been so satisfied.
Reporting or the ma.tter was noth­
ing short or sensational.
The jury bad the opportunity of
knowing all the facts.	. They made their decision.
Don't try to sell newspapers by attacking the Jury and the Jury system.
You do great harm In the gulBe of
good.
You would give away a great freedom because you wrongly think another Is under attack.	·

to hear from persons with an Interest In the atudy.
Those who feel they can contribute In 110me way, perhaps by mak­ ing detallil or their or­ ganlsat!on.s ava.Uable lor !nclUB!on In the llnaJ report: could coni.act me at the Australian Institute of Crimi­ nology, PO ,.Box .28, Woden, ACT 2606. teie­ phone (062) 83383.
Dr P&nl R. WU.00,
aawt:a.nl dlreclor,
.Beses.rcblllld
81&11R1a.
Voted
him out

their severely handicapped

verdict. It may even be proper to

Think again. Your attack Isutterly

SIR, I 'll'OUld lllte to

ung adults.

express BOme disquiet.

wrong.	.

extend my sympathy to

Perhaps In planning next

But the NT News and other presses

You also claimed that theCriminal

Mr Bob Collins.

ar's Budget It will find some

In this cowitry are drawn to aell

Law Association wa.s not properly

The fact that hls

mpathy in its stony heart and

papers by aensatlonallsatlon.

constituted.

party voted 80 over­

Balanced reporting ls a thingol the

I moved lts formation. The

whelm1n.gly to get him

3ke  an	allocation for this

past.	•

Solicitor-General seconded It.

out or the Assembly a.nd

portant facility.

Yet to uphold one freedom you

That motion wa.s unanimously

bury him In the Senate

fhe need will double in the

wish to destroy others.

passed by the biggest gathering of

must   be   &   bit	of a

x:t five years.

The late Mr Justice Murphy was

Northern Territory lawyers ever

worry.

caring Government would

moved to remind us of the great

held.

He ahould watch bJ.s

t now to avert further human

value of the jury system.

Tom Pauling, QC,

back very closely.

tastrophe.

You are bent upon a path ol

president, NT Bar AssoclaUon.

8. Oa.ner,

Hwnpty Doo

r6, 1986	L	I ") . Rf-.,