Ben Roberts-Smith

[facthunter]

 NO I'd be breaking my own rules it I did. and (THAT is NOT a Cop Out).    You under-rate the Judges responsibility. Public comment can Make a Fair trial Unlikely,  The Trial is happening Now. Nev

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

Ben is done for if there are any Afghans or muslims on the jury. 

[octave]

1 minute ago, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

Ben is done for if there are any Afghans or muslims on the jury. 

I wouldn't worry about that.   Here is the jury selection process (at least in NSW)  If the defence believes an Afghan (f one happened to be selected) would be prejudiced to the defence, they can challenge, as can the prosecution.

 

The Jury Selection Process:

• Selection: The Sheriff randomly selects people from the NSW electoral roll within a court's district.
• Notice and Summons: Residents receive a notice of inclusion for a 12-month period, followed by a summons to attend court on a specific date.
• Eligibility: Most people registered to vote are eligible, though some criminal convictions, legal disqualifications, or occupations (e.g., police) may exclude them.
• Exemption: Individuals can request to be excused for reasons like health, undue hardship, or prior service.
• Empanelling (The Ballot): At court, the Judge's Associate randomly draws cards from a ballot box to select 12 jurors for a trial.
• Challenges: The defense and crown can each challenge (object to) up to three potential jurors without giving a reason. 

[Jerry_Atrick]

@Grumpy Old Nasho - you really need to stay away from TV.. It is mainly American fed BS that doesn't even apply in their legal systems. 

 

War crimes are covered under the Crimes Act (Commonwwealth), making it a federal office; not a state offence. It is an indictable (serious) offence. However, there is no federal criminal court, the court of the first instance will be the supreme court of whichever state he is in, which is NSW. 

 

Under NSW law, all indictable offences require a trial by jury, except where, in the court's opinion, there is so much publicity that would impact almost anyone from being unbiased and potentially predisposed to a guilty verdict. But, this does not apply to federal offences thanks to s.80 (I think) of the Aussie constitrution, that requires all commonwealth (fedral) indictable offences to be tried by jury.

 

The Bondi gunmen are also to be tried in the NSW Supreme Court in the first instance. 

 

In both cased, the defence may (and will likely) petition the court that a trial by jury would be prejudicial to the defence. If both succeed, then the outcome will be different for both defendants. Roberts-Smith will walk free. As the court will deem he cannot be granted a fair trial by jury, and the Aussie constitution requires those charged with a federal indictable offence are tied by jury, the court has no choice. It's as simple as that. Of course, the prosecution will appeal it, but if the decision is upheld, Robert Smith is a free man.

 

In the case of the Bondi Gunman, there are 59 offences including murder, attempted murder, terrorism, firearms, etc. For the NSW state offences (murder, attempted murder , some of the firearms offences, some of the terrorism offences), he will still be tried - but by a judge only or a number of judges. He does not automatically walk free. If the defence do not agree, he will still be tried by jury. Unlike Roberts-Smith, he has no "get out of jail" card, if you will excuse the pun. 

 

But there's more.. the procedure is slightly different, especially where the judge has to give reasons for finding of fact (where a jury doesn't), It is hard to quantify, but because it holds the judge to a higher level of scrutiny, is is argued tha ut us harder to get a convuiction because they judge requires more to eliminate reasonable doubt (standard of proof the prosecution must provide) and less to introduce doubt on the balance of probabilities (standard of proof required by the defence). 

 

Every new editor (TV, magazine, radio, etc) in the country knows this. 

 

So, your theory that all the hype with Roberts Smith and the relatively low coverage of the Bondi Gunman is to lynch Roberts-Smith is so far from reality, it beggars belief. It is in Roberts-Smith best interests that there is as much bombastic coverage showing him as guilty as possible. With every press story that can predispose people to an opinion, the defence case stengthens that he can walk away a free man. 

 

Similarly for the Bondi Gunman, as if the defence will have less to do to introduce reasonable doubt (not that that will happen) or intorduce a defence (e.g. mental impairment - still slim but probably he only one he has got form what I saw as provication has to be proximate). By the press not covering it obsessively, they are prroviding less than they could to the defence to give them their best short at walking away. 

 

But, if you want to reverse the situation and have all the coverage on the Bondi person and none or less on Roberts-Smith, then you are virtually guaranteeing he will be tried, and possibly allowing enough of a sliver of hope the Bonid gunman can rely of some defence (though I doubt it, because criminal mental impariment is a much narrower definition than clincial definitions).