The Teacher’s Pet: Do viral podcasts have the ability to taint a jury pool?

I, like many thousands of others, have recently been immersed in the Australian’s podcast series The Teacher’s Pet. This brainchild of award winning journalist Hedley Thomas charts the disappearance and probable murder of a mother of two on Sydney’s northern beaches in the early 1980s.

As an avid fan of ‘true crime’ television series such as The Staircase, Making a Murders, The Jinx, The Keepers and the irreverent (and fictitious) American Vandal, I expected to embrace this series with similar relish. Surprisingly, however, I found myself guarded about the narrative pushed in this podcast phenomenon.

I suspect my hesitance to fully embrace the series is borne from my own dealings working within the criminal justice system in Australia. More precisely, I couldn’t help myself thinking about the rights of the (likely) defendant and how any future trial may be horribly prejudiced by this (understandably) popular podcast.

Foremost among my concerns was the impact the podcast may have on potential jurors. I would suspect, without being able to prove, that this podcast has been popular with a demographic which can relate to the heady days of the early 1980s. Anecdotally, those Baby Boomers account for the majority of jurors in criminal trials. In other words, this podcast is hitting the exact demographic who may find themselves called upon to pass judgment on Chris Dawson, should he ever be charged and tried.

A journalist is, at the end of at the day, a story teller. Hedley Thomas has told a ripping and compelling yarn but there are times, despite his best intentions, where questions of admissibility are left by the wayside. Of course a juror will only hear evidence which is admissible. They will not hear scores of opinions offered by concerned neighbours or hearsay conversations. Rules of evidence exist to recognise the danger and unreliability of such evidence. A journalist need not make such a distinction.

By populating the podcast with so much innuendo and opinion, which makes for great listening, there is a risk that any potential juror who has followed the podcast or accessed related news content may be exposed to evidence which is ultimately unable to be led at trial. This can lead the juror to base their decision on matters which are not relevant to the case.

Much like Making a Murderer there has been an absence of a competing narrative throughout The Teacher’s Pet. That is no fault of Hedley Thomas who has noted on numerous occasions that the Dawson’s have been given the opportunity to come on record. Quite sensibly, they have not done so. Any criminal lawyer who has ever worked on a case of a historical nature will see the grave risks of taking such a step.

As a result the series pushes an agenda which, in turn, has caused a significant groundswell and justifiable outrage as to the ineptitude of the early investigation and the lack of accountability of the Office of the DPP. The risk to a juror however is that they are being exposed to such a partisan version of events. Such a risk can manifest itself in the onus of proof shifting from the prosecution to the defence.

One can only hope that should a trial ever be reached that the jury will be polled on the knowledge of the podcast and the case generally. Hopefully any potential juror who discloses such an interest should be excused from service. My concern though is that there may be some jurors who play down their interest in the case so as to place themselves in what shapes to be a dynamite trial or that when selected as a jury member, they begin undertaking their own ‘background reading’.

It has been commented on by far more erudite minds than mine that jurors in the current technological age have far more information available to them than jurors in the past. They are far more susceptible to outside influence and the scourge of fake news. If I were acting on behalf of Mr Dawson I would be greatly concerned about the real or perceived risk that the jury pool has been tainted by the popularity of the podcast.

So, that being the case, would it be worthwhile seeking a ‘judge alone’ trial (if a trial is ever reached)? That is a topic for later musings. For now, I think the lesson we can learn is this: the increased interest in true crime reporting is likely to result in the number of truly objective jurors dwindling.


Remy Kurz

29 September 2018

Remy Kurz Presentation at Balmoral State High School

Solicitor Remy Kurz attended Balmoral State High School yesterday to present a session to the school’s year 10 to 12 students about his experiences as a lawyer.  

The presentation covered a number of contemporary legal topics such as cyber safety, the death penalty, issues surrounding consent, and the legalisation of cannabis. The students enjoyed hearing some real life examples of interesting criminal cases and had plenty of questions about how a defence lawyer operates in this dynamic area of the law.  

Remy spoke of the advantages of pursuing a career in the legal profession, noting that there are a range of growing areas within law that offer a diverse range of career choices.

Should your school be interested in having Remy speak to aspiring young law students contact Robertson O’Gorman on 3034 0000. 


Consorting Laws: Worth the Effort?

Following the passage of the Serious and Organised Legislation Amendment Act in 2016 Queensland now has the new offence of habitually consorting with a recognised offender[1].This offence outlaws anyone from having intentional contact with two or more ‘recognised offenders’, with certain (narrow) statutory exceptions.


The explanatory notes for the new laws suggest that they are more constitutionally robust, fairer, efficient and effective than those which had been preferred by the Newman Government. Time will tell.


By May 2017 the Courier Mail were reporting[2] that over 100 warnings had been issued without any charges being laid.


Under the old version of this law, proceedings against the 7 alleged members of the Rebels Motorcycle Club took almost four years to be conclude in the Magistrates Court. At the time of last report, only two of the original ‘Yandina 7’ were prosecuted. The cost to the taxpayer for prosecuting 7 men ‘having a beer’ would have been monumental. Several defendants were legally aided and a deputy director appeared for the Crown.


While apparently aimed at any ‘organised’ crime there is little doubt that the legislation was drafted with outlaw motorcycle gangs (OMGs) in mind. Despite this, this author has seen three recent examples of how the Queensland Police Service have broadened their application of these controversial laws.


In the first instance, a female partner of my client (who admittedly had ties to OMGs) was issued a consorting warning listing her partner as someone she could not consort with. The warning was issued despite statutory defences found in section 77C which include, amongst others, that any consorting with a spouse or someone whom you share parental responsibility with should be disregarded.


In the second instance a young man’s father called me sounding irate. His son had been served an official consorting warning seeking to prevent him from seeing his best friend since childhood. The friend had one previous conviction which had been resolved summarily. Despite this, the friend was defined as a ‘recognised offender’. He had been convicted of a drug offence which carried a maximum penalty which exceeded 5 years[3]. There was no suggestion he was a member of an OMG.


The third instance shows how the legislation is being contorted to apply to just about any group of people the Police have their eye on. I acted for a young client who, with several others, was charged with a violent home invasion. My client was released on Supreme Court bail before the charges against him were discontinued. Following his discharge my client was given a consorting warning prohibiting contact with some of his former co-accused (who I presume met the definition of reportable offender). Importantly, the co-accused had been in custody together for some time (another statutory defence under s77C) and any evidence which suggested a gang affiliation was not pursued by the Crown at committal. In reality, the Police wanted to impose upon my client a quasi-bail condition preventing him contacting his co-accused. All of this when he was no longer before the Courts.


Each instance here reveals a lack of understanding of the application and intention of the consorting laws. Further, it crystallises the dangers outlined in the High Court challenges to this type of legislation namely that such laws are, in practice, being used to simply stop association, rather than to prevent organised crime.


More pointedly, it suggests that the QPS are giving very little thought to s5BAC of the PPRA which stipulates that before giving an official warning they should consider whether it is appropriate to give the warning having regard to the object of disrupting and preventing criminal activity by deterring recognised offenders from establishing, maintaining or expanding a criminal network.


One hopes that the Public Interest Monitor, who is responsible for gathering statistical information about the use and effectiveness of these warnings[4], is taking careful note. To suggest that no charges have been preferred on account of the effectiveness of the warnings is simplistic. Unless the law is applied as intended, its benefits will never come to fruition.




[1] Section 77B Criminal Code


[3] As most offences under the Drugs Misuse Act do.

[4] Section 742(4)(e) Police Powers and Responsibilities Act (2000)