The " Mystery " of our Courts !

Spectators were bemused by the strange verdict delivered in one of our courts this week.  The jury was hearing a case where a shop owner is accused of spreading petrol in his store and starting a fire to gain an insurance payout to cover his debts.   This ground floor shop had two flats on the floor above and the inferno killed a man in one flat and a woman and child in the other.  The jury viewed a video of the accused buying petrol and the resulting explosion trapped and injured him at the scene of the fire.

He pleaded not guilty, but on Friday the jury delivered a guilty verdict on the charge of being responsible for the death of the man in one of the flats.   Surprisingly, it failed to reach a verdict on the death of the woman and child - and it will return to hold further deliberations after this long weekend.

To find the accused guilty of one death required acceptance that the spreading of petrol and lighting the fire was proven.  Three people died as the result and this lack of uniformity in the verdict makes absolutely no sense.    Just one of the mysteries that may be probed if the final verdict finds its way into the appeals court.

Another case pending involves an Australian Olympian who is awaiting selection to represent this country at the forthcoming Rio Olympics.   Michael Diamond has won gold as a shooter but he faces a charge of driving under the influence of alcohol - and having an unsecured firearm in his possession.  Because of the charge his firearm license has been suspended.

He has asked for his hearing to be expedited because the pending charge will disqualify him from selection for the Rio Olympics, and the deadline for the Australian group is July 4.  Diamond has indicated that he will be pleading not guilty - and his case has been listed for mention on July 25. That expedition plea has been rejected on the grounds that he must " wait his turn, like everybody else " !

That would be a reasonable rejection in most cases, but it does come in contrast with the " presumption of innocence - until proved guilty " which is the bastion of our law.   In the event that Diamond is successful in presenting his defence, he will have suffered a penalty which can not be remitted.

Winning Olympic medals is in the national interest.  National pride is involved and it is highly likely that if Diamond is allowed to compete he will be likely to share at least a spot on the winning dias. It seems quite unreasonable that his selection to go to Rio will hinge on the rejection of the court to hear his case as a matter of expediency.

There is a high degree of discretion available to judges and magistrates.   They often dispense mercy by not having a conviction recorded or requiring just a good behaviour bond where such a penalty is considered very " light "- but in this case the rejection will be measured against our hope of Olympic success.

It all comes down to the disposition of the man or woman sitting in judgement on the bench.   The only hope seems to be to have the case moved to another court - and finding a judge with a recreational interest more involved in the sporting world !