Saturday, December 15, 2012

Herbert inquest

"Media reports" is an unusual name for a source, in this police spin.

This NSW crook's history doesn't seem to rate any mention on Google but the WA inquest into his brother's death, and into the alleged-chase-related deaths of three others, was quite a bit more notorious among the news reports.

Troy Herbert, who died - shortly after - a police chase, was not a crook, but was pursued allegedly because the bike he was riding had no rear mudguard.  

Top brass tried to explain away  the 51 times that police testimony contradicted their police vehicle (AVL) data during the Coroner's investigations of the four deaths. "Nothing to see here, move along..."

The inquest heard from one officer that the top penalty received by any of the police involved in those alleged police chases that allegedly resulted in the deaths of four men, was 3 days of driver re-training.

The police had repeatedly not adhered to policy pertaining to top speeds permitted and Internal Affairs was rapped over the knuckles by the Coroner for failing to investigate properly.

WA Police said they are worried Herbert's brother could now be interested in reprisals.


Some excerpts from the inquest findings into Mr Herbert's death can be found here. The page won't be here permanently, out of respect for the deceased.  But,  for the time being,  they no doubt are in the minds of all the reporters who sat through that very highly-charged inquest, and offer a little insight into current police apprehensions.

##UPDATED - The parolee was recaptured after an alleged altercation at a bottleshop in Logan, a considerable way away from Perth police - hmmn... This story about the arrest allows no room for presumption of innocence for the deceased (even after the incredible evidence in the Coroner's Court) and very little for the re-arrested Herbert - maybe police PR people wrote the copy?

The re-use of media releases, unadulterated, as copy, is a regular occurrence in Australian mainstream media where redundancies are high and revenue is king.
Where there is court action pending, anybody who is arrested has a legal right to be treated as innocent by journalists, and even by spin doctors. Additionally, journalists have a legal and ethical obligation to report about people arrested and facing court in a manner that is not, and will not be, in contempt of upcoming court proceedings. The safest rule to stick to when you're writing a story, if in doubt (because journos don't need to be qualified, experienced or registered to work in Australia and some court reporters are very young), complex media codes or laws aside, is - how would you, yourself, like to be treated? Would you like to enter court with the presumption of innocence so that your case may be assessed on its merits, or would you like the media to colour the court and public's views with their sources' opinions about your guilt or innocence?

In historic cases such as those investigated by Blackburn (Beamish and Button), Lovell (The Perth Mint Swindle), Bret Christian (Walsham 3 and Christie), Cockburn (Edward Splatt), Masters (Condren) and Colleen Egan (re. the Mallard affair), journalists can readily see that the presumption of innocence is really, extremely vital to observe, and in doing this, journalists can protect themselves and their readers. In many of the above cases journalists/court reporters were forced to obfuscate and back-peddle after having not scrutinized police spin(PR) enough. Some industry peers even went so far as to slur the names of some of the journalism giants who revealed those wrongful convictions. It is notable that the Australian Journalism Association Code of Ethics between 1944 and 1984, noted an ethical obligation towards ones' peers. In Australia there is no effective regulation of the print media  and this can lead to heinous coercion, threats, corruption and bribery although this can be combatted somewhat by strong support from peers and employers, and a culture of transparency being encouraged in the workplace.

There are no legal protections against defamation of the dead (or the civil dead, for that matter). So, legally, journalists may say whatever the police and their spin doctors tell them to about people who die subsequent to, or after "police presence" or pursuits (so long as an inquest is not pending) -  in that case, journalists only have to worry about civil litigation  by the bereaved for damages and trauma, or complaints made to the Australian Press Council, but only if their publications are (voluntary) members.

These Fairfax stories are marginally better, but still lack independence from police sources.