Not even sure on that. As I have said before, the medal is not about a persons general character, but rather about their actions at a specific point in time. This is not like Jobe’s Brownlow where the AFL decided that he was cheating when he won it, therefore not the fairest. The VC is awarded for valour “in the presence of the enemy” and I have heard nothing to suggest that did not happen. It is like saying you won a medal for saving a drowning person which placed you personally at great risk, then taking it off you 5 years later when they find out your a wife basher. One does not preclude the other. While it may not be a good look to potentially have a VC recipient convicted of war crimes, unless they could prove that his actions that led to the award did not happen, there really is no basis for removing it from him.
Assuming a war crimes conviction happens. Hell just be called war criminal…
I have real doubts there will ever be any war trials. BRS would never agree to a Judge only trial and it would be easy to argue that any jury would have some bias given all the reports. While the evidence and testimony may seem compelling in the Media, it may lack enough substance to get a criminal conviction. No forensics, no vision or audio, and photos that are doubtful evidence.
Maybe exactly what the BRS legal team was wanting to achieve from this ongoing circus.
That will be an easy way for it to end up at the Hauge.
That will never happen.
Why not?
Not how it works. Never been how it works.
Section 80 of the Constitution precludes judge only trials for indictment of any offence against Commonwealth laws. This line of logic implies that high-profile figures (eg, a politician) could never be charged for the commision of federal crimes due to publicity bias.
Which is ridiculous.
Except that the current circus is so widespread and unique. It would be easy to argue that any jury is prejudiced on the basis of the widespread publicity; it has happened before.
I’m not a lawyer, but that sounds fairly absurd on the face of it. Under that theory, if you’re sufficiently high-profile, you could commit any crime and then avoid trial by arguing ‘too much media attention, you can’t try me, too bad so sad’
They could argue it, but it wouldn’t get very far.
Why didn’t Lindy Chamberlain think of that?
Now I’m genuinely curious - what is the process for selecting an impartial jury for a case with such a high public profile like this one?
Is it just a case of it doesn’t matter they know about the defendant or the case more broadly, rather the judge and legal teams are sufficiently satisfied they are capable of returning an impartial verdict?
At its most basics, the jury is the trier of the facts. The evidentiary facts relevant to the law at issue will be argued between the lawyers and the judge will direct/guide the jury on relevance and weighting.
At the end of the day, for the jury, does it come down to sufficiency of facts, the extent to which the facts are contested, who to believe and the extent to which the jury is influenced by the credibility of witnesses?
Credibility could be the most subjective and which would be relevant to publicity prior to the trial, but it is not the sole determinant.
Except that this iss reported every day in all media with lots of detail and lots of comment. It is hard to believe many people have not formed strong opinion on BRS.
I have been on juries a number of times over the last nearly 50 years and Judges are always strenuous in telling Jurors not to read anything on the trial, and when you are selected the legal ones question you as well.
If anything ever does get to trial, which I doubt, there will be mistrials and appeals until “justice is served”.
There is no exceptional process for empanelment, the important thing are the directions given to the jury to ensure they remain impartial and make their decision on the basis of the evidence presented at trial. Any potential juror from the pool must excuse themselves from service if they do not believe they can act as an impartial and unbiased juror.
The idea that a criminal trial would be completely undermined because people had heard of, read news articles or developed a previous opinion about the accused is farcical.
Anyone suggesting publicity, no matter the extent, can exempt people from due process of the law has no idea.
How do jurors deal with high profile public figures when the court of public opinion has already judged them adversely?
Looking at the differences between Pell and BRS. The crime against Pell was one of child abuse on Australian soil, one to which jurors could relate, there was public suspicion of Pell involved in cover ups.
BRS might be perceived as unlikeable and of dubious personal character, but he was a soldier, bravery not in doubt, acts on foreign soil against foreigners suspected of potential harm to Australian soldiers. Jurors more likely to give him and his supporting witnesses the benefit of the doubt on evidence?
I guess it could be argued that the juries in Pell case case and that of Lindy and Michael Chamberlain could have been influenced to a guilty verdict by the massive media coverages prior.
Think if I had to face court I would always want to have a jury, because I have such a lovable and honest face.
I was on a jury for drug trafficing case once in Sydney, and as soon as we went into the jury room to come up with the verdict, one of other jurors said to me that as one of the defendants looked like her grandfather, she could never find him guilty, and another who was a Gurka, said to me that finding anyone guilty was against his religion !!
His medal is now tainted by a saga.
I’m led to believe the medal will be rescinded and jointly awarded to Trent Cotchin and Sam Mitchell.
I would be perfect for their jury then, have not read a single thing about the trial. Really don’t consume news in any form anymore. To be honest, I don’t watch tv at home at all, unless it is sport (Essendon games only), I haven’t read a newspaper in 10 years, I only listen to the radio driving to and from work so only get the news snippets, and generally they are only local bits.
Except you are obviously reading this thread, and the legal ones are taking note.