Abbott scholarship leaker escapes conviction Sydney whistleblower Freya Newman has been served a two-year good behaviour bond with no conviction after pleading guilty to illegally accessing and leaking documents about a scholarship awarded to the daughter of Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott. Newman, 21, in May disclosed documents to journalists alleging Ms Abbott, …
But at least she does not have to live in Russia for the rest of her life...
One important difference between US and the rest of the world is that if this had happened in the US there would be some mandatory 20 year sentence that would be plea bargained down to 5 years without parole. Whereas in oz a two year suspended sentence is not that harmful in practice. But of course Google never forgets so she is now unemployable.
Ms Abbott said of the breach earlier this month it was "just like as a small child [learning] it's not right to read someone's diary".
Ahhh, no, Frances, it's not like that at all.
I appreciate the sentiment of her saying that it's curiosity and somewhat natural and therefore forgivable (if that is indeed what she is saying) but the analogy can be taken that this is entirely private business, and it is not.
Many times many have 'favours' been exchanged in this way. People might be aware of some of the litany of discounts and good deals that flowed to and from the Obeids and MacDonalds, amongst others - lucrative property deals, valuable information, discounts on cars, cheap loans, etc...
Whatever your thoughts on Ms Newman or Ms Abbott, there is a good reason why people believe that Tony Abbott was wrong not to disclose this and that is because favours to family is a prime avenue for stuff like this.
The point of disclosing gifts is to show where our politicians have received things of value that might sway their decisions. It is foolish to believe that giving someone's daughter a $61,000 discount is not something of sufficient value, such that our Prime Minister felt that it wasn't really important to disclose. He might have been inside the letter of the regulations but certainly not the spirit.
Regardless, what Ms Newman did indeed require sanction - as the judge rightly said. This is because (as I understand it) Ms. Newman was not a 'whistleblower' who had, in the course of her employment, been made aware of this information but had instead been suspicious and sought the information out for the express purpose of revealing it.
You can admire her motives of wanting to keep our politicians honest but you can't condone her actions.
@silent_count
A good behaviour bond may be issued without conviction in accordance with the Crimes (Sentencing Procedures) Act (1999), Section 10(1)(b).
As the Judge explained:
"The decision to record or not to record a conviction is not a reflection on whether a person is guilty or not."
The Judge gave her reasoning for not recording a conviction at some length, listing the "objective factors" (i.e. ones not in any dispute) to be as follows:
As subjective factors, she lists Ms Newman's good character, remorse and immaturity, along with a mention of her motivation which, while it "does not excuse her conduct", does help to explain it and as being "motivated by a sense of injustice rather than a desire for personal notoriety, greed or any desire to embarrass the student".
Judges are given a "wide discretion" in how they apply sentencing in such cases and so the Judge, upon weighing the factors, found the case to be:
". . . towards the lowest end of the scale for offences under this section."
And, thus, she decided upon a good behaviour bond. with no conviction.
@ dan1980
Thanks for taking the time to explain in such detail. I do appreciate it.
It's not that I believe anything untoward has taken place with regard to this particular case, it's that I don't grasp the "no conviction" thing at all.
Either the defendant is found not guilty and (obviously) no conviction is recorded because there wasn't one to record. Or they're found guilty - they are convicted of whatever crime they've been accused of - and the conviction is recorded because, well, that's what happened.
The notion that the defendant can be convicted but the judge decides not to record a conviction... that's just too much for my simple mind to comprehend.
Hey mate.
It is odd in a way but all that needs to be accepted is that a criminal conviction is a punishment in and of itself and not every unlawful action deserves that level of punishment.
The judge actually specifically mentioned that there is an 'extra-curial' punishment that comes from the very public nature of the case.
Such 'punishments' involve non-judicial detriments suffered as a result of the crime.
Legal theory holds that the purpose of punishment in these instances is for the purpose of, essentially, dissuading a repeat of the action or the same action being committed by another. It is a deterrent.
The concept of 'extra-curial' punishment accepts that extra-judicial factors may serve to fulfill this function. In other words, the person may have 'learned their lesson' already.
What good, after all would an on-the-record conviction do? This is national news, which is to say that Ms Newman's name is now better known to - for example - prospective future employers than someone receiving a formal conviction in a less-prominent case.
This is not enough by itself but if you consider the other factors - that the offence was at the lower end of severity, and Ms Newman was both young and idealistic with an otherwise clean slate - you have to ask yourself if society is better off with her receiving a criminal conviction or a very serious scare and a stern warning.
The judge decided on the latter and I agree. Punishment must serve a purpose to society or else it is mere vindictive retribution. Even when it does (serve a purpose) it is to be regretted and we must constantly strive to do better to mitigate the need for it at all.
@silent_count
"Either the defendant is found not guilty and (obviously) no conviction is recorded because there wasn't one to record. Or they're found guilty . . .
As a small addition, it is my understanding that non-conviction good behaviour bonds are only applied where there is a guilty plea, as there was here. This is because (again, I believe) that contrition is a key component - they have to accept that they did something wrong and be sorry for it. If they are not then there's really no reason to believe they won't do it again and thus a conviction would be warranted.
And to Captain Downvote - why? What did @silent_count say that was cause for disapproval?
Question (valid), two statements (both valid) and then another question (again, valid). How about, instead of downvoting, you actually address a single word in the post?
What's the point posting on a website aimed at educated, intelligent people if all you do is shout "naaahhh" from across the room?
@dan1980
I do understand your reasoning, as you've explained it, and thank you again for taking the time. I'll confess that I'm still uncomfortable with the notion of not recording convictions.
I'm simple. I think if someone does something good, they deserve the credit for what they've done. If someone does something bad, at the very least, the fact that they've done so should be recorded. That's the price, good or bad, of doing business.
All in all, it's probably a good thing that I don't have much to do with the legal profession. :)
"Newman was not afforded public-interest whistleblower protection as the Whitehouse Institute was a private institution."
I don't know very much about the importance of the Whitehouse Institute in Australian funding, but in the UK, there are some very important bodies, such as Wellcome and Nuffield Trusts, which are desperately in need of some public scrutiny. Their processes for awarding funds are very opaque, and I know of several well-respected researchers who will not apply to them for funding because they are not on the apparent list of "favoured" applicants. Any whistleblowers in either organisation will be gratefully received!
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
