You may consider yourself to be an honest, conscientious citizen but on Sunday evening will you be aiding and abetting a crime?
It is a criminal offence to profit from a crime. Which means that if someone has been convicted of a serious crime and then profits from that crime by selling his or her cankered story to a media outlet – which obviously believes that it, too, can profit as a result of the crime - that person is subject to the Profits of Crime Act.
Under the Proceeds of Crime Act, assets that are derived from a criminal act can be seized.
Chapter two of the Criminal Code, which sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility, covers all offences under the Profits of Crime Act.
The signing of a contract by a media outlet in which a criminal gains a benefit would, therefore it seems, create a criminal offence.
And, logically, it should be a criminal offence to aid and abet that media outlet in breaking the law.
The Criminal Code says: “A person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission of an offence by another person is taken to have committed that offence and is punishable accordingly.”
It has been alleged that Channel Seven has paid at least $2 million for an interview with Schapelle Corby which will be aired on Sunday evening.
So if you choose to watch Schapelle Corby telling Mike Willesee on Sunday evening that she is innocent; she has had a terrible time, she is grateful for all the people who have stuck by her; and she just wants to get on with her life, then you will be aiding and abetting an offence.
No, I don’t expect the police to be knocking on the door of everyone who watches the program on Sunday evening.
And I’m sure there are lawyers who would say I’m drawing a long bow.
But that does not detract from my essential argument.
It is against the spirit of the Criminal Code and the Profits of Crime Act to enable Channel Seven and Schapelle Corby to profit from her conviction for attempting to import illegal drugs into Indonesia.
Channel Seven would not be paying $2 million or whatever sum it has allegedly paid (to whom?) for its exclusive interview with the convicted criminal if it did not expect to profit from the prime time freak show.
So Channel Seven is hoping that crime pays.
And it is inviting you to aid and abet it by watching not only the interview but also the advertisements for which it will, reportedly, be charging an exorbitant premium.
Would you, for instance, have watched an interview with Al Capone or the Boston Strangler knowing that the criminal had been paid a vast sum of money for protestations of innocence?
Section 153 of the Proceeds of Crime Act explains that it applies to “any benefit that a person derives from the commercial exploitation of…the person’s notoriety resulting, directly or indirectly, from the person committing an indictable offence or a foreign indictable offence.”
The commercial exploitation may be by any means, including: publishing any material in written or electronic form; or any use of media from which visual images, words or sounds can be produced; or any live entertainment, representation or interview.
The definitions and qualifications of the Act continue and it may well be that a skilled lawyer might be able to defeat the objective of the Act in relation to Corby.
That should not detract from the fact that if you watch the Channel Seven interview you are essentially helping to pay a convicted criminal.
I equate it with the fact that if you buy cocaine you are part of a process which has resulted in the obscene and often indiscriminate killing of hundreds of Mexicans in the drug wars.
A question: if Channel Seven has, as reported, signed a contract with Schapelle Corby, who is the cheque made out to?
I’m betting it is not the convicted criminal.
If Channel Seven reveals the amount of money it is paying and the name of the person on the contract who benefits, and that person is Schapelle Corby I’ll be the first person to apologise.
On the other hand, if Ms Corby puts her hand up and admits she was guilty of the crime (read Mike Duffy’s book Sins of the Father) and announces that the money being paid by Channel Seven is going to charity I will be astoundedly amazed, delighted and, once again, apologetic.
So what should happen on Sunday evening?
A strong message will be sent to media outlets if viewing figures for the Corby interview are abysmal: Australians do not want the media to make crime pay.
It is a criminal offence to profit from a crime. Which means that if someone has been convicted of a serious crime and then profits from that crime by selling his or her cankered story to a media outlet – which obviously believes that it, too, can profit as a result of the crime - that person is subject to the Profits of Crime Act.
Under the Proceeds of Crime Act, assets that are derived from a criminal act can be seized.
Chapter two of the Criminal Code, which sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility, covers all offences under the Profits of Crime Act.
The signing of a contract by a media outlet in which a criminal gains a benefit would, therefore it seems, create a criminal offence.
And, logically, it should be a criminal offence to aid and abet that media outlet in breaking the law.
The Criminal Code says: “A person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission of an offence by another person is taken to have committed that offence and is punishable accordingly.”
It has been alleged that Channel Seven has paid at least $2 million for an interview with Schapelle Corby which will be aired on Sunday evening.
So if you choose to watch Schapelle Corby telling Mike Willesee on Sunday evening that she is innocent; she has had a terrible time, she is grateful for all the people who have stuck by her; and she just wants to get on with her life, then you will be aiding and abetting an offence.
No, I don’t expect the police to be knocking on the door of everyone who watches the program on Sunday evening.
And I’m sure there are lawyers who would say I’m drawing a long bow.
But that does not detract from my essential argument.
It is against the spirit of the Criminal Code and the Profits of Crime Act to enable Channel Seven and Schapelle Corby to profit from her conviction for attempting to import illegal drugs into Indonesia.
Channel Seven would not be paying $2 million or whatever sum it has allegedly paid (to whom?) for its exclusive interview with the convicted criminal if it did not expect to profit from the prime time freak show.
So Channel Seven is hoping that crime pays.
And it is inviting you to aid and abet it by watching not only the interview but also the advertisements for which it will, reportedly, be charging an exorbitant premium.
Would you, for instance, have watched an interview with Al Capone or the Boston Strangler knowing that the criminal had been paid a vast sum of money for protestations of innocence?
Section 153 of the Proceeds of Crime Act explains that it applies to “any benefit that a person derives from the commercial exploitation of…the person’s notoriety resulting, directly or indirectly, from the person committing an indictable offence or a foreign indictable offence.”
The commercial exploitation may be by any means, including: publishing any material in written or electronic form; or any use of media from which visual images, words or sounds can be produced; or any live entertainment, representation or interview.
The definitions and qualifications of the Act continue and it may well be that a skilled lawyer might be able to defeat the objective of the Act in relation to Corby.
That should not detract from the fact that if you watch the Channel Seven interview you are essentially helping to pay a convicted criminal.
I equate it with the fact that if you buy cocaine you are part of a process which has resulted in the obscene and often indiscriminate killing of hundreds of Mexicans in the drug wars.
A question: if Channel Seven has, as reported, signed a contract with Schapelle Corby, who is the cheque made out to?
I’m betting it is not the convicted criminal.
If Channel Seven reveals the amount of money it is paying and the name of the person on the contract who benefits, and that person is Schapelle Corby I’ll be the first person to apologise.
On the other hand, if Ms Corby puts her hand up and admits she was guilty of the crime (read Mike Duffy’s book Sins of the Father) and announces that the money being paid by Channel Seven is going to charity I will be astoundedly amazed, delighted and, once again, apologetic.
So what should happen on Sunday evening?
A strong message will be sent to media outlets if viewing figures for the Corby interview are abysmal: Australians do not want the media to make crime pay.
RSS Feed
