had the Star Times ... secured an interview with Billingsley, the paper would have been all over it. It would have been yesterday’s lead story.
But it actually gets worse ... Fairfax reporter Kim Knight eventually did get an interview. It’s there in the Sunday Star Times, where she explains her decision to go public.
I'm not sure how that is worse. It shows 1. that they didn't front-page the interview, and 2. that their news team thought the story was on the speaking out, which was also the focus of the editorial.
That would be covered by the "self confessed" surely?
You can confess to something that is reported as a paraphrase.
Is it viable to wait instead for photovoltaic panels? How will things have changed by the time we’ve paid off the investment in five years?
Surely, if things get way more awesome in five years, it won't matter that you've done this because, if the theory is correct, you'll still have been saving money. What investment are you worried about wasting if you are saving money?
I’m not sure what that the quotation marks around “activist” are meant to signify
I assumed they were meant to signify that the word was a quote.
I only watched the first episode, and not the second.
Would that make a difference to what I'm thinking about the series?
Is it better as six episodes or three doubles?
So if the law is widely flouted and never enforced, why is it even on the books?
Well, a lot has changed since 2006.
After the inquiry into the death is completed, it seems that s71 doesn’t apply any more because s71(c) no longer holds.
Section 71(1) applies before a coroner's finding is released.
Section 71(2) applies after a coroner's finding is released.
It would seem pretty odd if permission was needed in perpetuity. So odd that I’m not surprised at the observation that no one has asked permission of the Chief coroner in 30 years, and he’s never taken anyone to task for that.
His comment was about no-one ever asking in the circumstances where I asked (ie after a high profile death presumed to be a suicide).
And yes, permission is needed in perpetuity if you want to disclose information beyond that allowed in section 71(2).
Check! That looks what what both the Act and the guide says.
The problem with the guidance is that it doesn’t even look like you need permission.
I meant to say, I think:
The problem is that that guidance makes it look like you can’t even ask for permission until after the decision is made (ie it looks like the pre-decision ban is total).
Pretty clear that you need permission to go further (although I can’t tell if even that is possible). Afterwards you can say it was a suicide without the coroner’s permission. That’s what I’m reading. You appear to need permission to say more than the very basic facts, though.
After a Coroner has declared a death a suicide, you can publicly state it was a suicide.
You can get permission to state more, such as the means used.
But the Act trumps the guidance, doesn’t it? Newspapers have surely hit this hundreds of times, got their lawyers to look at the law, and then realized that it’s clear enough in the Act itself that the highly counter-intuitive idea that coroners have a perpetual right to deny freedom of reporting of any suicide is counter-intuitive because it’s false.
I am confident you need permission to report the particulars of a self-inflicted death before the Coroner has made a decision.
The problem with the guidance is that it doesn't even look like you need permission.
The problem with the law is that you do need permission.