Category: Criminal Law

Frank Darabont’s 1994 film The Shawshank Redemption is an enduring classic of American cinema. Based on the Stephen King novella Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption, it tells the story of Andy Dufresne, a young banker sentenced to life imprisonment in the tough Shawshank State Penitentiary for the murder of his wife and her lover, a crime he says he didn’t commit. That’s tough material for any audience, and when the film was first released it all but tanked at the box office. But eventually moviegoers came to embrace the morality tale at the heart of Andy’s redemption, and the film went on to outstanding critical acclaim, recognised as one of the best films of our time. Most of the most quotable quotes come from Andy’s fellow inmate Ellis “Red” Redding, played with understated dignity by the great Morgan Freeman, whose gentle narration becomes a quiet commentary of Dufresne’s desperate struggle to maintain his self-worth in the face of brutality and hopelessness.
Notwithstanding all the hoopla being currently kicked up in the public press, I expect the  verdict hardly raised a single eyebrow amongst experienced criminal lawyers anywhere around the globe. On Friday Judge Thokozile Masipa found the celebrated South African Paralympian not guilty of murder, but guilty of culpable homicide. Neither finding would likely be considered in any way surprising or remarkable to anyone with a close understanding of the British legal system.
Earlier this week I was sitting in the public gallery of a Magistrates Court on the Sunshine Coast waiting for my client's matter to be called before the magistrate, when a downcast defendant was led into the dock with both hands locked together in a pair of impressive-looking wrist restraints. The police prosecutor proceeded to launch into a dissertation on the defendant's misdemeanours, when the Magistrate abruptly interrupted.
Last week I was invited by Amnesty International to join a panel of criminal justice experts discussing the human rights implications of Queensland's anti-bikie laws, indefinite detention regime, and other current and mooted legislative changes challenging many of our accepted notions of personal liberty. The discussion, which took place in the Banco Court of Brisbane's new Supreme Court complex, and involved a broad spectrum of speakers ranging from the Queensland Police Commissioner Ian Stewart to legal academics and practitioners, was introduced by the President of the Queensland Court of Appeal Justice Margaret McMurdo, who spoke powerfully of the need for lawyers to find a voice in championing human rights both here and internationally.
Picture: Rhodi Lopez Source: Unsplash Years ago I was involved in a major Australian Federal Police investigation into a high-profile union administrator (amongst others) in which the AFP bugged the homes of a host of dodgy characters all the way from Cairns to Coolangatta. In the process they came up with a mountain of secret tape recordings of sometimes very private communications between all and sundry. The listening devices secreted in the homes of those under investigation included a bug in the main bedroom of a home where one suspect and his wife shared their matrimonial bed. The resultant tape recordings included audio of some goings-on that were so sensitive the tapes ultimately never saw the light of day. But they made some people stop and rethink whether the ends always justify the means, or should there be some careful circumscription of some of our more police intrusive investigation tools.
About 20 years ago I acted for a young police officer who was charged with assault occasioning grievous bodily harm after he applied a particularly vigorous choker hold in arresting a recalcitrant drink driver. Following his police training to the letter, my client locked his arm around the man's neck and pulled it tight enough to restrict the offender’s blood flow to his brain, causing temporary loss of consciousness, a very effective way of incapacitating anybody. Unfortunately, he also managed to pop one of the man's eyes out of its socket, and cause further unintended but significant damage.
We choose our friends. We don’t choose our family. But family is family, for better or for worse. Mostly we love them, at times they drive us to distraction. They embarrass us, and we embarrass them. But as life pitches up its cruel and crazy curveballs, family is a constant.
The story that went viral last week about the so-called "hot mugshot guy" Jeremy Meeks raises some very interesting social issues in this new world of all-pervasive media. With television news reports following real-life crimes and court cases in a blow-by-blow, up-close-and-personal style, reality television crews following around cops and customs officers filming them in action, increasingly realistic and graphic CSI-type T.V. shows giving us a voyeur’s view into real-life crime (or is it ?), and interactive computer games like Grand Theft Auto allowing our kids a hands-on, albeit computer generated, experience in committing crime, the question has to be asked – are we seriously losing touch with reality? Society’s apparently increasing fascination with crime and criminals has many wondering whether at least some amongst us may be finding it difficult to distinguish between reality and entertainment.