[LINK] ethics above the law?

[Adam Todd]

At 10:52 AM 13/02/2007, Richard Chirgwin wrote:
>Brendan Scott wrote:
>>Kim Holburn wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200702/s1846038.htm
>>>
>>  But Judge Rozenes accused the journalists of putting their ethics
>>>>above the law, and asked how any court is expected to tolerate that.
>>>>
>>>He admitted the journalists acted ethically?
>>>
>>
>>The reference is to "their" ethics - which is not necessarily the same as 
>>what the rest of the world considers ethical.
>>Eg: if a group decides it's unethical to pay taxes should the court 
>>simply respect "their" ethics?
>>
>No; but if a court agrees to hear the "no tax" case, that group has the 
>right to argue its case in front of the court, and has the same right to 
>lose its case as the journalists (or, if it discovers a necessary point of 
>law, I suppose it also has the right to win the case!).
>
>The court didn't "simply respect their ethics". It found them guilty and they

Actually the court didn't find them guilty.  They plead guilty.

The court appears to have taken it on face value.  The court could of 
course conduct due inquiry and find them not guilty based on their ethical 
values, which have in all senses hurt no one, except those whom tried to 
use them as a means of defence.

To me, based on what I've read, it should have been dismissed and perhaps, 
again base don what I've read, the Judge was hinting, next time plead not 
guilty.

>are now awaiting sentencing hearings. So the journalists have taken a 
>particular course of action, in full knowledge of the possible 
>consequences (and, given the history of such hearing, knowing within a 
>couple of points of certainty that they would lose the case).

On that basis they are probably trying to up their public profile and also 
show other whistle blowers that their identifies are safe.

Hinch did it and set a precedent.  These journalists have made a very clear 
and conscious decision over a fairly lengthy period of time.  They could 
have at any time avoided this outcome.

They chose not to.

They have created martyrs of themselves.

That's more life time affecting and positive than breaking ones promise.

Be interesting to see the sentencing.

The Judge has discretion.

To weigh in the public interest immunity or the extreme of the law which 
was intended to be used for people intending to hide crime.

I can see this heading to the high court :)