Not for the first time, I have to wonder why Sinclair Davidson lets his ratbag site Catallaxy run comments that are clearly defamatory - or, shall we, at risk of being found defamatory. The latest ones are from CL against the complainant in the Pell case. At this stage of the court process (an appeal underway), and even if there is much commentary in the media about how many people are "surprised" at the second jury's verdict, is it really wise to be calling the complainant a outright liar on your website? Although his name is suppressed, presumably his family and some colleagues know who he is, so obviously such claim can hurt his reputation.
And if any appeal does succeed, an acquittal does not necessarily mean something couldn't be found to have happened if you were applying a lower standard of proof than the old "beyond reasonable doubt" used at a criminal trial. The fact that our criminal law is more about what can be proved to a certain standard, and not technically about whether it likely happened or not, surely means it's never a good idea to be accusing the complainant (even on a successful appeal) of being a liar.
No comments:
Post a Comment