101243; COMMUNICATION LAW

COURT REPORT

AND

ETHICS

At Campbelltown Court on the 3rd of May, a trial was held for a 37 year old man accused of driving whilst his license was disqualified. The accused was allegedly seen by police driving his vehicle along his street of residence at which point he was taken into police custody subsequent to section 25A (1)(a) of the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1998 (NSW). Section 25A (1)(a) states that a person who is disqualified by or under any Act from holding or obtaining a driver licence must not drive a motor vehicle on a road or road related area during the period of disqualification. As a result of this, the accused allegedly committed a crime against the state and is liable to imprisonment for 2 years. The only defence presented for the accused was his statement upon arrest in which he stated that he was simply moving his car from the footpath at the front of his residence to the driveway. However, the police prosecutor drew on previous convictions of the same crime in 2004 to thus submit that the accused is not unlikely to drive whilst disqualified. On this occasion, bail was refused subsequent to section 8A of the Bail Act 1978 (NSW) due to his possession and suspected supply of commercial quantities of drugs. Counsel for the accused submitted that his client be admitted to home detention and

1 Emma NADIN 17217721

take part in an intensive correction program to deal with issues of repeat offending until such time that his case be taken to trial. The judge explained that her leniency in sentencing at this point in the hearing was due to the fact that accused had pleaded guilty at first instance and furthermore he had not previously failed to appear before the court. As a result, an assessment was ordered as to the suitability of the accused for an intensive correction program and he was required to report to a probation service located within the Campbelltown region within 7 days and weekly thereafter in the presence of a police officer. Upon entering the court, public were instructed that no names were to be taken down at all, to protect the integrity of all involved in the matters. As a result, the names of the defendants were made available to the judge by way of files which were handed from the counsel for the defence to the judge. If you had little knowledge or understanding of court proceedings and criminal matters, there would have been little sense made from the short discussions between the judge and the counsel. The judge had been previously presented with the cases and was well aware of the matters and issues which needed to be dealt with meaning that they were dealt with swiftly and succinctly. In summation, though the case had little to do with communication law and ethics, there was discussion between the counsel for the defence and the police prosecutor in relation to the presentation of past offences to the court by the prosecution and the way in which negative inferences could be made
2 Emma NADIN 17217721

regarding the alleged drug trafficking, reflecting the concept of defamation. It led me to question why the prosecution felt it necessary to bring up the previous drug related offences of the defence in a case in dealing with road safety and driver disqualification.

3 Emma NADIN 17217721