[GandalfTheGrey]

Fair trial in doubt for Thomson


Craig Thomson is a man who has been treated poorly by his accusers, both political and otherwise. He has the right to the presumption of innocence and to a fair trial, writes Greg Barns.

Craig Thomson's chance of obtaining a fair trial in relation to fraud charges is problematic.

The New South Wales federal MP has been subjected to a long-running campaign designed to undermine the most sacred of rights we have in our legal system - the presumption of innocence.

What is more galling is that now he has been charged with offences the very same people who were happy to paint him as an unsavoury character last year, are now invoking the sub judice rule.

In addition, the conduct of the police in Thomson's matter has also been disturbing and it continued yesterday.

But back to the political class. Yesterday Opposition Leader Tony Abbott said of Thomson's case that his party "has certainly respected, or tried to respect, the rule that you do not comment on the specifics of cases which are currently before the courts."

But almost in the very same breath he went on to breach Thomson's right to the presumption of innocence.

"It's always been about the judgement of the Prime Minister... who was running a protection racket for Craig Thomson for months and years," said Abbott.

Note the use of the term "protection racket" - in other words there is something crooked about Thomson. This statement by Abbott was disgraceful and no doubt Thomson's lawyers will look at it carefully in the context of whether or not their client can get a fair trial.

Abbott has form for undermining Thomson's right to the presumption of innocence during 2012. Remember the unseemly spectacle on May 30 last year of the agile Abbott, and frontbencher Christopher Pyne, bolting from the House of Representatives Chamber so as not to be seen as voting with Thomson on a matter? If that action was not designed to portray Thomson as unworthy or guilty of something then it's hard to imagine what such an action would be.

Only a few days before the Abbott and Pyne sprint the latter said of Thomson and a report by Fair Work Australia into Thomson and the union he once headed, the HSU, this "sorry affair has damaged the parliament and its reputation". Pyne argued that the ALP should not rely on the vote of Thomson who had left that party's caucus. Once again Thomson's rights were trampled over by political opportunism and the public was left with the impression this man was guilty of serious wrongdoing.

But in addition to the political antics, there is the likelihood of media tip-offs by New South Wales and Victoria police. In October last year the media were present when police raided Thomson's house and electorate office early in the morning. Without a police tip-off it is highly unlikely that a bunch of well-equipped media people would be hanging around this early in the morning. I can add here that having been involved in the criminal justice world for some time police tipping off the media about a high profile case is not exactly uncommon.

But this was not the only tip-off. According to Thomson's lawyer Chris McArdle:

Channel 7 had a TV crew outside [Thomson's] house and outside his office from about seven o'clock this morning. So Channel 7 knew about it, my client didn't know about it, my client's lawyer didn't know about it.

Yesterday the NSW Fraud Squad's Col Dyson told the media that Thomson was arrested because he refused to surrender himself.

''I believe that from reading the warrant he was invited to travel to Victoria to surrender himself prior to Christmas, he didn't do that,'' Dyson said. Dyson didn't need to tell the media this and furthermore it is every person's right not to surrender themselves to police. Such an action is not one that connotes guilt.

There is a pattern here. It is police undermining the presumption of innocence by creating a climate of guilt. When the public watches or reads news that someone has been raided by police, that they have refused to surrender themselves (McArdle actually says police requested Thomson to come to Melbourne to be interviewed not charged), and that they have been charged with 150 counts of fraud then many will begin to assume that there must be guilt somewhere.

In short, Thomson is a man who has been treated poorly by his accusers, both political and otherwise. His right to the presumption of innocence and to a fair trial where there are jurors unaffected by the constant slurs on his name, have had serious doubt cast upon them.

Perhaps someone needs to warn those who, over the next eight and a bit months to September 14, might be tempted to link Thomson with Julia Gillard and the ALP for political gain. In other words a repetition of Abbott's effort yesterday. Such efforts are not only politically questionable but more importantly if there are enough of them they will provide very useful evidence for Thomson's lawyers to argue that their client cannot get a fair trial.

There also needs to be an assessment by police commissioners in New South Wales and Victoria about cosy media links in high profile cases. Thomson is entitled to be treated with the same respect as any other person charged with a criminal offence - that is, not have the media camped out the front of their home or office prior to police turning up.

Craig Thomson is a victim. He is a victim of political opportunism and police 'we've got a big scalp' syndrome. As a citizen Thomson deserves much better.

Greg Barns is a barrister, former Liberal Party advisor and national president of the Australian Lawyers Alliance. View his full profile here.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4495056.html

Greg Barns makes a general point about Craig Thomson's treatment. However I want to focus on the specific approach now being adopted by the coalition in their belated and grudging acknowledgement of the need for due process.

I'm sure we've all seen previous quotes from coalition MPs - most notably Barnaby Joyce - loudly proclaiming Thomson's guilt long before he was even charged over anything. Now that he has been charged, Tony Abbott has called a ceasefire of sorts - adopting the line "he has the right to the presumption of innocence". Ignoring for the moment the sheer absurdity of this proclamation in light of the intense character assassination campaign against Thomson that went on right up until this ceasefire, Abbott has further muddied the waters of due process by turning his attack to the Prime Minister's "judgment". So the line now adopted by Abbott and the coalition goes like this: Thomson has the right to the presumption of innocence, but the issue now is the judgment of the PM in continuing to accept Thomson's vote in the parliament".

Leaving aside for a moment the obvious hypocricy of the coalition's willingness to accept Mary-Joe Fisher's vote in the senate while she was on assault and theft charges, there is clearly a problem with saying Thomson should be presumed innocent on the one hand, and on the other say the PM has poor judgment for accepting Thomson's vote. If Thomson is presumed innocent, then Thomson should be accepted as is - with no preconceived notions or "judgments" about his guilt or otherwise. If this was trully the coalition's attitude, then on what possible basis can they claim the PM has "poor judgment" in accepting his vote? What does he even mean by "judgment"? Why should the PM be judging anything about Craig Thomson in the first place - if the law, not to mention parliamentary precedent, demands he *NOT* be judged?

[colliric]

Because the law is an emotionless ass(a donkey), while the Prime Minister is not...

"Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't extend to personal judgements of character and integrity, it applies to the crime that has been committed. This is fundamentally misunderstood by the article you just quoted.

He may or may not have been guilty of the specific crimes, but that does NOT mean he isn't a sleazy corrupt individual.

There is a difference between one, and the other and good juries are able to make that distinction.

[GandalfTheGrey]

That makes absolutely no sense colliric.

On what basis should he be judged a "sleazy corrupt individual" unless we know for a fact that he has taken part in 'sleasy and corrupt' behaviour?

You don't, know one does. What you say is nothing short of slander.

[colliric]

That makes absolutely no sense colliric.

On what basis should he be judged a "sleazy corrupt individual" unless we know for a fact that he has taken part in 'sleasy and corrupt' behaviour?

You don't, no one does. What you're saying is nothing short of slander.

I guess in your mind that means OJ Simpson was innocent and nothing bad should be said about him...

After all he was judged "Not Guilty" thanks to a glove that it later came out the Cops probably planted at the scene, THAT DIDN'T FIT HIM.

There is a diffrence between personal judgement of one's character, even personal judgement of the crimes they are alleged to have committed and the specific legal judgement of Crimes that they may or may not have comitted.

OJ just happens to be the most famous case of that, the Legal Judgement was clearly wrong and it's certainly likely the Cops planted that glove hopeful it would help their case... They stuffed it up. He was clearly a murderer, and the courts fucked it up by making the wrong decision.

Court decisions are NOT perfect, they are not personal decisions of character. You do not need to refer to them, OR wait for them, when discussing judgements of character or even personal judgements of weather or not you believe they committed the crime. I believe Craig Thompson is guilty, his "it was anyone but me" speech in parliament was a farce, and I'm not afraid to say it.

Good Juries should know how to differentiate between the two, and it should NOT affect the trial. Trials should be decided on evidence specific to the crime, which no doubt this will be. This is why the OJ Jurors kind of didn't stuff up their decision, as the evidence was likely tampered with in some way, either by the cops, or by OJ's defense team(an allogation that was made as recently as september last year), and they didn't get the whole picture.