After the terror attack at Bondi Beach on Sunday, the media has used the word ‘alleged’ when referencing the two gunmen.
For example, TDA has reported: “Prosecutors will allege the pair opened fire at a Jewish community event at Bondi Beach in Sydney’s east on Sunday night.”
This can be confusing, given there is footage of the mass shooting that confirms two gunmen did indeed open gunfire on a Jewish community event.
So, why is the word ‘alleged’ necessary?
Media publications need to use the word because one of the alleged gunmen is still alive and is yet to face the judicial system.
Your contribution ensures The Daily Aus can continue doing the work you love.
I want to give $10 monthly to help TDA keep doing the news.
Your account details:
NSW Police have confirmed the alleged terrorist will “face criminal charges”. Immediately after saying this, police said it’s “important [they] don’t prejudice any prosecution”.
This is because Australia’s justice system is built on the idea of a ‘presumption of innocence’, as well as a person’s ‘right to a fair trial’.
A ‘right to a fair trial’ means media reports should not assert someone is guilty before a trial has occurred, and a judge or a jury has delivered a verdict.
If this process is not followed, the defendant (in this case, the alleged terrorist) could argue they have not had a right to a fair trial, which could jeopardise justice being served.
There can be serious consequences for journalists and media organisations that state as fact that a person has committed a crime before any verdict in a trial has taken place. This is called contempt of court.
