Extrajudicial Speech and the Prejudgment Rule: A Reply to Bartie and Gava
The precise limits of the rule against prejudgment remain to be determined. It has recently been argued that the rule should be extended to prohibit extrajudicial statements on matters of law, as well as those of fact or evidence at issue in a particular matter. It is argued that this suggestion sho...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Published: |
The University of Adelaide
2013
|
| Online Access: | http://www.adelaide.edu.au/press/journals/law-review/issues/alr-vol-34-2/alr-34-2-ch3.pdf http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/35527 |
| _version_ | 1848754520655396864 |
|---|---|
| author | Finn, Chris |
| author_facet | Finn, Chris |
| author_sort | Finn, Chris |
| building | Curtin Institutional Repository |
| collection | Online Access |
| description | The precise limits of the rule against prejudgment remain to be determined. It has recently been argued that the rule should be extended to prohibit extrajudicial statements on matters of law, as well as those of fact or evidence at issue in a particular matter. It is argued that this suggestion should be resisted, as neither the existing case law nor underlying principle support such an extension. Moreover, there are strong policy reasons for not doing so. |
| first_indexed | 2025-11-14T08:41:43Z |
| format | Journal Article |
| id | curtin-20.500.11937-35527 |
| institution | Curtin University Malaysia |
| institution_category | Local University |
| last_indexed | 2025-11-14T08:41:43Z |
| publishDate | 2013 |
| publisher | The University of Adelaide |
| recordtype | eprints |
| repository_type | Digital Repository |
| spelling | curtin-20.500.11937-355272017-01-30T13:50:08Z Extrajudicial Speech and the Prejudgment Rule: A Reply to Bartie and Gava Finn, Chris The precise limits of the rule against prejudgment remain to be determined. It has recently been argued that the rule should be extended to prohibit extrajudicial statements on matters of law, as well as those of fact or evidence at issue in a particular matter. It is argued that this suggestion should be resisted, as neither the existing case law nor underlying principle support such an extension. Moreover, there are strong policy reasons for not doing so. 2013 Journal Article http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/35527 http://www.adelaide.edu.au/press/journals/law-review/issues/alr-vol-34-2/alr-34-2-ch3.pdf The University of Adelaide restricted |
| spellingShingle | Finn, Chris Extrajudicial Speech and the Prejudgment Rule: A Reply to Bartie and Gava |
| title | Extrajudicial Speech and the Prejudgment Rule: A Reply to Bartie and Gava |
| title_full | Extrajudicial Speech and the Prejudgment Rule: A Reply to Bartie and Gava |
| title_fullStr | Extrajudicial Speech and the Prejudgment Rule: A Reply to Bartie and Gava |
| title_full_unstemmed | Extrajudicial Speech and the Prejudgment Rule: A Reply to Bartie and Gava |
| title_short | Extrajudicial Speech and the Prejudgment Rule: A Reply to Bartie and Gava |
| title_sort | extrajudicial speech and the prejudgment rule: a reply to bartie and gava |
| url | http://www.adelaide.edu.au/press/journals/law-review/issues/alr-vol-34-2/alr-34-2-ch3.pdf http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/35527 |