Those of you who follow this blog may recall a couple of posts by me on the Cameron Slater issue earlier this week
A lot of so-called experts in the media have been quick to list all the things Slater is going to go to prison for, including contempt of court, perverting the course of justice, and just about every other offence short of sheep bothering.
Never mind the presumption of innocence, sub judice and all that.
Now I have to say I'm not particularly fond of Slater, but I am rather fond of the law, being one of those lawyer types. And while I'm by no means an expert in this area of law, it appears I must know more than some of the rent-a-quotes who have been in the media this week, and who have been publicly planning Slater's incarceration (I won't name them).
Because I have been saying (on this blog and on others) that the penatlies for breaching name suppression may well be limited to a mere fine, and that if anyone thinks Slater is bound to face different charges they may be proven wrong.
And so it turns out.
I know it's the sign of a rampant ego to parade one's little victories over the hoi polloi, but come on, let me have this one. I was right, it seems. For now anyway.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
2 comments:
I welcome comments, but I ask commenters to follow a few simple rules:
1. I delete anonymous comments. Please use either a name or moniker. I am not asking anyone to reveal their secret identity. Just don't call yourself "Anonymous".
2. Please don't abuse or defame others.
3. Moronic or nonsensical comments may be deleted.
4. I don't often exercise the heavy hand of censorship, but I do reserve the right to delete any comment I don't like, for any reason.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The title of your post is, like, one of those word plays, right?
ReplyDeleteSure, sure... (pretending to be very clever)
ReplyDelete