We have been accused of inaccuracy and not getting our facts correct and of taking pleasure in naming and shaming those who are found guilty of crimes in our local court.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

When we report on what has occurred in court, we present the facts that are agreed upon by both the defence and the accused in cases where the accused pleads guilty.

We also report on defence submissions, what is said between solicitors, the accused and the Magistrate in open court.

For example in our story Covert sting nabs dealer (May 5, page 3) we reported that; The court heard defence submissions that Jake William Dawe did not receive any money for selling the drugs and did it to help out a friend.

We went on to report that;  Magistrate Dare said he found it difficult to accept Dawe “would commit such a serious crime out of the goodness of his heart.”

We feel we gave due consideration to the defence’s submission in the story.

In subsequent stories on Mr Dawe’s appeal against the severity of his sentence, we reported that he plead guilty to three counts of supplying a prohibited drug.

That is a fact. That is accurate reporting.

Here at the Witness, we do not sensationalise anything that is said in court or the agreed upon facts; we just report the facts. 

What we report in our pages and on our website are the facts as agreed upon by both sides. We simply can not report anything else.

If an accused person has a version of the events that have led to their arrest that differs from the police version they nearly always plead not guilty and allow the Magistrate to decide.

In all cases we can legally report anything that is said in open court by the defendant, prosecution or Magistrate.

Once a judgement has been made we report that.

That is the right of journalists; we are presenting what is of interest to the public. 

The distinction between what is interesting to the public and what is of interest to the public can be blurred.

However, In the case of court reporting, it is clear.

It is in the interest of the public when the court reporting exposes wrongdoing and injustice, and when it may protect the public from danger, when it prevents the public from being misled, and when it reveals information which helps the public make decisions of importance.

This is different to what is interesting to the public. A good example of that would be reporting on who a celebrity had at their wedding. Not really of interest to the public, but this information would be interesting to some.

We do no report gossip or hearsay.

We report facts that are agreed upon by both sides in cases where a defendant pleads guilty and submissions from both sides in cases where a decision has to be made by the Magistrate.

If a defendant disputes the facts they need to do so before the open court through their solicitor.

Recent correspondence would suggest some defendant’s don’t realise that if they plead guilty they are admitting to the police facts, unless they state otherwise on the day of their appearance.

We have published court stories connected to our staff, we show no favour. The majority of our readers demand we cover the courts because it is in the public interest. 

We will keep doing so.