Vanessa Scammell
👤 SpeakerAppearances Over Time
Podcast Appearances
for the injustice of justice reared its ugly head when the magistrate decided to make sure her comments were to be heard.
After delivering her verdicts of not guilty 13 times, she had her say to a packed online media gallery.
But note well, these weren't just off-the-cuff comments in passing, never to be heard of again.
Not at all, for the Magistrate went on to include these comments in her final rulings.
Rulings that are published and available online for anyone to access.
So even after admitting that none of these comments were actually part of her final decision, they became part of her published ruling.
Why would a magistrate who had just acquitted a man feel it necessary to reference new laws?
For as discussed,
Craig McLachlan attended court for 26 days whereby chief evidence had been given, cross-examination at the highest level of the law had been conducted to around 20 witnesses and a not guilty verdict was the end result.
Was it because the Me Too movement was still operating at a frenzied peak?
Was it the pressure of a public officer of the court ensuring all women remained believable?
Or was it because she couldn't find him guilty but wanted to make sure that she left an impact, ensuring her stance as a Me Too advocate would be recognised?
And so I ask you this question.
Should comments post acquittal from a presiding magistrate be permitted, let alone published, when such comments bear no relevance to the charges that were tried under the laws at the time of the allegations?
How protected are these judicial officers of the courts?
Are there no consequences?
On December the 15th, 2020, after Craig McLachlan was found not guilty of 13 charges, I remind you what the magistrate said to a packed online media gallery.
In Victoria, the laws for indecent assault changed after 2014.
Therefore, because charges were laid against Craig McLachlan that were alleged to have occurred in the year 2014, he was tried by the laws that existed at that time.
For want of a better description, the old laws.