An interesting issue came up this week in the Australian (and international) media landscape, with the story of Madeleine Pulver.
For those hidden under a rock, this 18-year-old Sydney schoolgirl was attacked in her home, an apparent collar bomb placed around her neck, and various extortion demands set out by her attacker.
The suspect was arrested in the United States, and a fact sheet of the alleged crimes filed with the court.
He was photographed being led into the court by local law enforcement, and a mug shot was made available to the media via wire services.
While these photos were freely available, media outlets treated them very differently.
The Daily Telegraph ran his photograph without alteration for a first edition this week, before pixellating it for the second edition. The Australian obscured his eyes. The Fairfax media, the SMH and The Age, ran the photos without alteration.
Reports suggest Madeleine Pulver only saw part of her attacker’s face as it was obscured by a balaclava. It begs the question – is his identity an issue in this case, and although the initial court proceedings have occurred abroad, has the identification of his full facial features at home prejudiced the future case against him? Is it considered subjudice at home if it’s been heard in a foreign court, or because local charges have not yet been filed, are media outlets allowed free reign?
It’s a complex legal question, and one which the lawyers are apparently still wrangling over. While the SMH continued to run his full photo today, by lunchtime, it had become pixellated.
