Editor, The West Australian: Re your report ‘The moment a mother unloads 25 years of anger”‘, TWA 7 Oct 2010 p9.
I was shocked to witness members of the electronic media chasing a 65-year-old accused of sexual misbehaviour of young boys in his care between 1977-1983. My protest is not so much at The West Australian, but at the electronic media, the TV stations, who reported that he had been in the Magistrates court and was remanded on bail.
The accused man indicated strongly to the electronic media representatives that he wasn’t interested in communicating with them in any way. Obviously these representatives of the electronic media acted in conflict with the presumption of innocence, that all people who are charged with a criminal offence have the protection of being presumed innocent until proven otherwise by a proper court.
What disgusts me was that the accused man actually was running away from the electronic media representatives and their cameras, and they were running, keeping up with the man knowing he wasn’t going to speak, ignoring the presumption of innocence and not respecting this person’s right to not communicate with anyone outside a properly-constituted court.
I call on the management of the TV stations to counsel their “birdbrain” journalists, explaining to them what the presumption of innocence means. In law it means you are presumed innocence until proven otherwise. They should be counselled for their disgusting behaviour, what I call media thuggery at its worst.
As for the mother who displayed the photograph of her deceased son, whilst not accusing the man directly: she should confine her comments in a court of law which is the proper place to give evidence. Expressing her anger at the accused outside the court was improper.
Brian G Tennant
Subiaco, Preth
Human Rights, Law Reform Campaigner and
member of CLA