BREAKING NEWS:
The Prime Minister has announced that Former Defence chief Peter Cosgrove will be Australia’s next governor-general.
General Cosgrove will be the nation’s 26th governor-general and will replace Quentin Bryce, whose five-year term ends in March.
Announcing the appointment at Parliament House, the Prime Minister praised General Cosgrove’s career
“Throughout his life he has demonstrated a commitment to our country and a commitment to service,” Mr Abbott said.
“I am confident that in this new role he will continue to deliver to a grateful nation leadership beyond politics.
General Cosgrove served as chief of the Defence Force from 2002 until his retirement from active service in 2005.
Mr Abbott also paid tribute to Quentin Bryce, saying she has “discharged her duties for almost five years now with grace and distinction”.
1. Search for Eeva
Update:
News Limited are reporting that a crime scene has been established on a Pottsville beach as police confirm there have been developments in the case of missing Greg Hutchings and his four-year-old daughter Eeva.
Police are guarding a scene on the beach at Pottsville and a press conference is scheduled to begin soon.
Attention had been focused upon a court appearance on Thursday in which her father Greg Hutchings is due to appear.
Top Comments
Best teach the girls to respect themselves while they're at it.
As a newbie here in Australia (ok, not that new, but I did not spend the first 37 years of my life here), can someone explain the laws that result in closing comments when there is a potential criminal trial in the future...I just don't get that people can't freely "talk" about current events.
It goes to the purity of the jury system and to the integrity of witnesses. Juries are supposed to only consider the facts presented to them in the trial. Considering things out of that is grounds for a mistrial. Also, in jury selection, it's important to understand if anyone has been closely following the case in the news as they shouldn't serve.
It's actually the prosecution who doesn't like the accused picture being shown because a defence lawyer will raise doubts about a witness as soon as she asks if the witness had seen the accused photo in the media. This can diminish the weight of a line up or pointing to the accused in court.
No Sherro, it's not the prosecution, and it's not to do with photographs.
It's a requirement for the jury to know as little as possible about the accused and their prior convictions, to prevent bias. It's irrelevant if they've seen photos in the media - the witness and jury know the accused has been charged. A lot of the time, the witness will know even more than the lawyers - they might have, y'know, witnessed the accused doing the crime, for example. It's irrelevant if they've seen a photo. What the jury can't know if prejudicial facts; eg he's previously been convicted of rape, has a retraining order against him from his ex, etc. What the witness can't know, is other witnesses prosecution, in case it sways their own ("eg hmm I thought the car was black but actually now that other witness mentions it, maybe it was blue." Memory can be too malleable)
It would actually greatly assist the prosecution if the jury could know the Accused's background. It just wouldn't be in the interest of justice.