It has recently been widely reported in the media that a high-profile NRL player has been charged with criminal offences, including drug offences.
What cannot be ignored is that the information that leaked to the media prior to the matter being introduced into the courts and before legal representatives would ordinarily be provided with the allegations. This leads to the question of how the information was leaked to the media – in circumstances where it is likely the only organisation with access to the relevant information was the Queensland Police.
It is inappropriate for information to be leaked to the media simply because a person who has been arrested or charged may be someone with a public profile.
The effect of these leaks is that it erodes the presumption of innocence because the allegations, which are completely untested in court, are also leaked. The most obvious issue arising from this recent matter is the player is apparently charged with supplying dangerous drugs. The reports suggest the player was allegedly messaging another person, in an attempt to purchase drugs.
Should that reporting be true, it seems no offence may have occured.
Further, completely unnecessarily, the name of an innocent (albeit similarly high-profile) party has been released to media. There is no other party to the proceedings that would ordinarily have that depth of information at this early stage, other than Queensland Police. Again, another cynical leak to media which bears the hallmarks of ‘tall-poppy’ syndrome simply with the intention to drag anyone with a public profile through the mud.
Regardless of the outcome of the matter, any reporting should occur when any story can be told accurately and completely – not simply due to a premature, biased leaking of information.
If the court outcome is then inconsistent with the original leaked information, the public becomes cynical and the player is nonetheless tarred – all because of the original leaks.
A recent example of this is another high-progile NRL player charged over a vehicle crash in the most recent off-season in Brisbane. The media were similarly provided leaked information which painted a narrative of what allegedly occured.
Those court matters eventually concluded with a result that was completey appropriate and ordinary given the actual charges and allegations made to the court. However, the narrative that had been circulated due to authorities leaking information led the public to believe that the result was lenient or more favourable than what any ordinary member of the public should expect to receive.
The justice system and the courts should be allowed to be the arbiters of the truth and there should not be any interference by way of comments or leak alleged facts, simply to “score points” or to cause further stress and damage to anyone with a public profile.
Every person deserves a certain level of privacy and their right to the presumption of innocence when navigating any legal process, regardless and despite their profile.
Our court system operates under an “open justice” scheme and it is from those public court proceedings that the relevant information ought be disseminated, not from the same person or body who are tasked with proving the allegations.