Jump to content

The wages of sin


Farelf
 Share

Recommended Posts

... well, not precisely death in this instance but luser tramped for having pornography on his office computer then gets lumbered for defaming his employer through "anonymous" spamming of his erstwhile co-workers - Sacked worker ordered to pay $1.6m. Interesting by-play here though it could be just in the reporting.

His dad lost his position as CEO and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the same company (presumably not a directly-related matter) and there may have been an element of payback for that too, involved in the younger man's actions, though that seems not to have been alleged. No doubt another case on the father's severance is in the pipeline which would inhibit presentation in this one. But people *know* (even innocent judges, perhaps). Then it seems the defence denied all but one of the defamatory messages and indeed all but one matter of the charges made were rejected, setting aside the previous findings of a lower court. Yet the Honourable Justice Simpson appears to have taken into account that "The accusations were made repeatedly.", referring to the defamations, without questioning the defendant's culpability.

Some elements outside of the accepted evidence seem to have affected the judgement in any event which could be seen as prejudice. The whole thing looks a little shaky to me, if so society has to get a bit smarter about the "internet-forensic" evidence. Key in this, everyone "knows", it seems, he sent each and every one of those messages so why can't that be proven? Judgement made, pretending to exclude the evidence lacking proof but apparently still taking it into account is risky and it may offer grounds for further appeal.

But, for the moment, justice is done, punishment fits the crime. But not necessarily the crime that is proven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, yes, it appears the main weakness is in that "reportage" (or in my reading of it). The judgement is (more) fully supported by the evidence according to this SMEC Holdings Ltd v Boniface [2007] NSWSC 1402. I shall leave my previous comments stand as a static monument to the folly of believing whatever is published in the popular press.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

/me/ wonders just how thse e-mails were actually provided as 'evidence' in the original case .... There is talk about who some of them were addressed to, but nothing resembling 'header data' showing in the documemtation shown in that link.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point - all that is usually released for public consumption are the basic header details and body, never the "technical" stuff. Each state has its own "Evidence Act" or equivalent and much care is devoted to the avoidance of forgeries/alterations through rules on custody and certification and so-on (no doubt with many a side-ways glance and amendments to ensure the local Act reflects "best practice"). Which is fine for physical evidence, but electronic? Must check - Acts and Regulations are all on-line these days - though actual practice may be more rigorous than those indicate (or so I have found in other matters). At the end of the day one would have to imagine even "reasonable" assurance is problematical. An observation of indirect relevance - recent dealings with the Russian Federation make it seem "they" still don't accept any form of electronic document as proof of anything. Except when it suits them, I suppose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...