Dec 192011
 December 19, 2011  Posted by  Breaches, Court, Non-U.S.

Sean Fewster reports that a defendant in an “up-skirting” case got more privacy than he gave his victims. Instead of holding the sentencing in an open courtroom, an Adelaide magistrate reportedly closed the hearing.

Because the media wasn’t allowed to attend, it’s not clear what the magistrate’s reasons were for closing the proceeding at which the defendant was sentenced to the equivalent of probation and court costs. Perhaps she anticipated embarrassment to the Mr. Smiley’s victims, but if so, that would have been reason to close the previous hearings, not the sentencing.

Since Smiley pleaded guilty last year, the magistrate’s decision makes no obvious sense to me. Hopefully the Australian media will find out why the court did this.

As to the sentencing, I will assume (always risky) that the government accepted a guilty plea with sentencing recommendation rather than put victims through any embarrassment of testifying. That said, this type of serial privacy invasion with attempts to sell the pictures should have resulted in jail time, in my opinion.

Read more on AdelaideNow.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.