It's not the result that's wrong so much as the process and the motives.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-19/barns-thomson-verdict-doesnt-vindicate-his-enemies/5269170
Craig Thomson's critics trashed the presumption of innocence and fairness before the law and his guilty verdict in no way excuses their actions, writes Greg Barns.
The enemies and critics of Craig Thomson, the former federal Labor MP and health union official, will no doubt think the fact he has been found guilty by the Magistrates Court in Victoria of a number of dishonesty charges yesterday vindicates the way in which they undermined his right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence.
If such reasoning is alive and kicking then it is specious.
Every person is entitled to have their fundamental legal rights respected irrespective of the outcome – an outcome that in this case might very well find itself being appealed.
It is worth recapping some of the most egregious examples of the way in which Mr Thompson was treated after Fair Work Australia's investigative arm delivered a report accusing him of breaching various laws by misuse of his union credit card.
In October 2012 someone in the New South Wales or Federal Police tipped off the media that Mr Thomson's house was to be raided. An atmosphere of frenzy and guilt was created when media duly invaded the privacy of Mr Thomson and his young family as police executed an early morning raid.
Then on the back of this appalling spectacle came the then opposition leader, Tony Abbott, demanding to know if Prime Minister Julia Gillard had confidence in Mr Thomson. In other words, Mr Abbott simply swept the presumption of innocence away.
Mr Abbott was outdone by the shrill cries of his sidekick and now Education Minister, Christopher Pyne, who said Mr Thomson, by this stage an independent cross-bencher, represented a "tainted vote".
There was footage of Coalition MPs scurrying from the House of Representatives Chamber so they were not seen to vote with Mr Thomson.
At this stage Mr Thomson was still well over 12 months away from his Melbourne Magistrates Court trial.
I wrote in a piece for this site on 25 October 2012 that the fact that "Craig Thompson has had his reputation and rights so undermined before he even steps into a court room should frighten all Australians. Because what it shows is that the cherished and fundamentally important rights of people in our legal system can be swept aside whenever it suits politicians and the media. The hunt for the story or the power would seem to be the driving factors in the way Mr Thompson is being treated. And who will it be next?"
That statement is as relevant today as it was 14 months ago. The fact that Mr Thomson has been found guilty by a court does not excuse the way in which he was treated as a criminal and an outcast with no respect for his right to plead not guilty and test the prosecution case. Those who undermined Mr Thomson's rights are as culpable today as they were in 2012.
What now, however, for Mr Thomson? His lawyers will no doubt study the Magistrates Court decision to look for appeal points. There are two ways they can proceed. The first is to simply appeal the findings and sentence to the County Court in Victoria, which is the next court up in that state's legal hierarchy. That hearing would be de novo – that is, all the evidence would be heard again by a judge.
The second way to appeal to is to argue that the Magistrate Charles Rozencwajg applied the law incorrectly. That appeal or review would be heard by a Supreme Court judge.
The law in Mr Thomson's case appeared complex. His lead counsel, Greg James QC, made final submissions which, on the media reports I have read appeared to focus, among other matters, on the way in which the charges brought by the prosecution were drafted. That is an important matter of criminal procedure and the bottom line is that a person charged is entitled to know exactly what it is they are alleged to have done and how that is alleged to breach the criminal law. The magistrate's decision focussed naturally on the issue of dishonest intent on the part of Mr Thomson when he used his union credit card.
Given the complexity of the case one would have thought having a County Court judge hear the matter again or an argument in Victoria's Supreme Court about whether the law was applied correctly would be on the cards.
I hasten to add that it may well be Mr Rozencwajg’s decision is upheld in either appeal court. The only point I am making is the circumstances of this case mean that some sort of appeal might proceed.
Whatever the fate of Mr Thomson, however, his case has been a sad reflection on how politicians and some in the media so easily trash the presumption of innocence and fairness before the law.
The loser in the Thomson case has been the rule of law.
