{"id":3971,"date":"2003-06-15T15:30:56","date_gmt":"2003-06-15T20:30:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/?p=3971"},"modified":"2021-03-09T13:43:12","modified_gmt":"2021-03-09T18:43:12","slug":"australia-more-on-polygraph-in-mallard-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/2003\/06\/15\/australia-more-on-polygraph-in-mallard-case\/","title":{"rendered":"Australia: More on Polygraph in Mallard Case"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\n\n

The Post<\/em> of Perth, West Australia, reports in an article titled, “QC asks judges to visit scene of ’94 murder.”<\/a> Excerpt: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

On Tuesday night, some TV news bulletins showed interviews with a Mallard family member, and several, including the 7.30 Report, showed videotape of Mallard doing an electronic lie detector test.<\/p>

A longer segment on the ABC’s 7.30 Report showed more of the lie detector, or polygraph, test.<\/p>

Mr Fiannaca said the reliability and scientific validity of polygraph testing would be challenged later in the appeal.<\/p>

Expert evidence brought by the crown would show it was “totally unreliable”, he said.<\/p>

The 7.30 Report had shown extra video of the testing that had not been made available to the crown.<\/p>

Mr Fiannaca said this amounted to non-disclosure of evidence by Mallard’s team.<\/p>

The footage was a very important part of the evidence needed to establish the reliability of the test.<\/p>

The crown was also concerned that lay witnesses yet to be called for the appeal would be influenced by the report.<\/p>

The video footage had not been admitted into evidence and was not in the public domain.<\/p>

He said the DPP was considering whether to take contempt of court proceedings against the TV channel concerned.<\/p>

Justice Len Roberts-Smith said there was potential for the report to have an impact on witnesses.<\/p>

He said: “I can think of witnesses who are uncertain about certain things.”<\/p>

Justice Christine Wheeler said the 7.30 Report segment went beyond a fair and accurate report of the court proceedings.<\/p>

It was emotive and one-sided, she said.<\/p>

Justice Parker said the reports had the appearance of something of an orchestrated campaign.<\/p>

He said it could have a long-term effect on the way the public viewed the courts.<\/p>

He said: “The extremely one-sided reporting creates in the public mind an expectation that is disappointed when the court makes a decision based on all the evidence before it.<\/p>

“The perception is created that the court is out of touch with the reality of the case.”<\/p>

He said the question of whether any polygraph evidence would be received was open to submissions.<\/p>

He said if there were any recurrence of the type of reporting seen on some TV bulletins on Tuesday night, the court would consider at least a suppression order, or the need for an adjournment.<\/p>

Mr McCusker said the polygraph footage had been provided to media about a year ago by supporters of Mallard out of “desperation”.<\/p>

He said it had been provided on the understanding it would not be aired until shown in court.<\/p>

Mr McCusker said: “Channel 2 took the view that once it [the polygraph] was mentioned in court, that was the trigger.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Post of Perth, West Australia, reports in an article titled, “QC asks judges to visit scene of ’94 murder.” Excerpt: On Tuesday night, some TV news bulletins showed interviews with a Mallard family member, and several, including the 7.30 Report, showed videotape of Mallard doing an electronic lie detector test. A longer segment on …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[95,121],"class_list":{"0":"post-3971","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-polygraph","7":"tag-admissibility","8":"tag-australia","9":"anons"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3971","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3971"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3971\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3972,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3971\/revisions\/3972"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3971"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3971"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3971"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}