Latham gets bond for camera `snap': [1 All-round Country Edition]
Stapleton, John. The Australian; Canberra, A.C.T. [Canberra, A.C.T] 07 June 2006: 3.
Show highlighting
Abstract
Although Mr [Mark Latham] faced two years' jail, magistrate Michael Stoddart, taking into account that Mr Latham had no prior criminal record and had entered a plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity, placed him on the bond and did not record a conviction against him.
Mr Latham's lawyer Clive Steirn told Mr Stoddart that his client had "snapped", having been out of public life at the time of the incident and faced with an invasion of his privacy.
"The photographer was out of line. One can understand Mr Latham's annoyance in relation to his children being photographed, as any responsible parent would. But Mr Latham's conduct was way out of line. He has overstepped the mark in his response to thephotographer."
FORMER Labor leader Mark Latham has been placed on a two-year good behaviour bond for maliciously damaging a newspaper photographer's camera.
Mr Latham pleaded guilty to the malicious damage charge in Campbelltown Local Court yesterday after the Director of Public Prosecutions dropped the more serious charges of assault and stealing.
The charges arose from an incident involving a photographer from The Daily Telegraph at a fast food outlet in Campbelltown, in Sydney's outer southwest, on January 19.
Mr Latham, who was with his two young sons, grabbed the digital camera from Ross Schultz, took it home and smashed it in his back shed.
Although Mr Latham faced two years' jail, magistrate Michael Stoddart, taking into account that Mr Latham had no prior criminal record and had entered a plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity, placed him on the bond and did not record a conviction against him.
But he ordered that Mr Latham pay $6763.70 in compensation for the camera.
A DPP spokesman said the withdrawal of two of the counts was part of a "charge negotiation and agreement with Mr Latham's legal representative and the cases on those two charges were not strong".
Mr Latham's lawyer Clive Steirn told Mr Stoddart that his client had "snapped", having been out of public life atthetime oftheincident and faced with an invasion of his privacy.
"At the very worst, the behaviour of Mr Schultz is tantamount to stalking and at the very least it's certainly very bad manners," he said.
Mr Steirn said the incident was not a premeditated attack and he had been trying to remove the memory card from the camera when his anger took over.
"Mr Latham, like any other parent, was mindful of his children's needs," Mr Steirn said. "No parent would want that type of intrusion into their privacy."
Mr Stoddart agreed that Mr Latham's actions had not been premeditated.
"The facts indicate to me that perhaps things should have been handled much better," he said.
"The photographer was out of line. One can understand Mr Latham's annoyance in relation to his children being photographed, as any responsible parent would. But Mr Latham's conduct was way out of line. He has oversteppedthemark in his response tothephotographer."
In a statement released after the decision, editor David Penberthy said The Daily Telegraph "has absolutely no interest whatsoever in Mark Latham's children and only ever intended to photograph him for a legitimate story on the first anniversary of his demise as Labor Leader".
"NSW police saw the images on the memory card from what remained of our camera and chose to charge Mr Latham. The fact that he has pleaded guilty to a charge of malicious damage and paid more than $6000 in restitution speaks for itself."
No comments:
Post a Comment