27 October

There’s such ancient sophistication in the law, which we’re never taught about. Like what’s currently happening in the Bruce Lehrmann trial, and the explanations for why the jury was dismissed. Imagine if you were on trial and were convicted, because some of the jurors saw something on YouTube and used that as the basis of their decision, rather than the evidence your lawyer had put before them. It’s gross injustice. I remember the kangaroo courters here with the Cardinal Pell trial, and me saying I thought he’d win because people were disrespecting the process. Exactly what happened, it prejudiced the verdict. Doesn’t mean I think Pell was right, I have no idea. But if he was guilty, it was the kangaroo courters who got him off in the end, not his lawyers. Also the principle that tabloid life has made us forget. That a person must be proved guilty, the baseline is always that they are innocent until proved otherwise. Why a person (like Lehrmann in this case) is free to say nothing at all in their own defence. It’s got nothing to do with justice ‘ignoring victims of crime’ (more tabloid rubbish). This is how the law works, and should work, you are always innocent until proved otherwise. Proved. If you ever end up in court accused of something, I’m sure you’ll appreciate that principle a lot more than we do right now.