2GB Ray Hadley Show segment “Deputy Premier Andrew Stoner & Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione on Occupy Participant found Not Guilty by Court.”
( http://podcasts.mrn.com.au.s3.amazonaws.com/rayhadley/20120518-occupy2.mp3 )In relation to the above mentioned case, Occupy Sydney wishes to highlight a grave misrepresentation of Facts by The Ray Hadley Show and the featured participants on a mainstream Radio Station with considerable influence in some community demographics.
- Last Friday Ray Hadley featured a story based on the Thursday Court appearance of Lance Priestley, an occupy Sydney participant. Lance was found not guilty of “staying overnight” x 2 charges and “intimidate police” x 1 charge, with all charges arising from his participation in the Occupy Sydney movement.
- The case involved an evidential hearing with multiple Police witnesses and the defendant choosing to give evidence alone for the defence. The Judge ruled in favour of the defendant as much on the basis of the evidence submitted by police as that submitted by the defendant.
- The Ray Hadley Show host Mr Hadley and his guests Messrs Scipione and Stoner relied on the Police “Fact Sheets” (a summary document outlining the brief case put by police. The Fact sheet does not contain even the full Police Evidence offered, let alone the defence arguments. A full transcript of the evidential hearing presenting the full body of evidence upon which the case was decided is available from The Downing Centre Court Registrar.
- The Ray Hadley Show made no attempt to give balance to what was in effect a skewed advertorial for the Politically motivated desires of the Assistant Premier and the operational playing field sought by the Police Commissioner. Requests for a right of reply by Occupy Sydney and the defendant directly to the show producer have been ignored.
- The Assistant Premier’s comments, made without reference to the full facts, draw attention to the need to continue to maintain separation between the Judicial Policing and Political aspects of Government . One might take the view that the Deputy Premier and Police Commissioner seek in making their public statements to in some way influence future Judicial interpretations of law. If this is the case it amounts to an attempt to pervert the course of justice or a contempt of court rather than enhancement of the law.
- The Assistant Commissioners Statements taken in their entirety amount to an unwarranted and expedient partisan attack on the character, ability, and impartiality of the magistrate who heard the case. As with Occupy Sydney, the defendant, and her honour or appropriate representatives have not been given the opportunity to reply.