4 Things to Know About the Criminal Case Against Alan Jones

The arrest and charging of veteran broadcaster and radio icon, Alan Jones, sent shockwaves throughout the country earlier this week.
Jones faces 26 charges regarding historic allegations of indecent assault and sexual touching of nine men between 2001 to 2019.
The police investigation was sparked by reports from The Sydney Morning Herald in December last year, which featured interviews with alleged victims, as well as anonymous sources.
On the same day of the first article, Jones’s lawyers filed a defamation suit against the news publication’s parent company, Nine Entertainment, with the former broadcaster vehemently denying the allegations.
The Epoch Times could not independently verify the allegations in The Herald’s reports.
The eleven charges against the 83-year-old are considered aggravated offences, which could carry sentences of seven years in prison.
“Finding an impartial jury in a high-profile case like Alan Jones’s involves rigorous measures,” said Tony Nikolic of Ashley, Francina, Leonard and Associates (AFL), in an interview with The Epoch Times.
“The court may employ extensive juror vetting, including questioning to identify biases from media exposure.
“Jurors may be selected from regions less saturated by pre-trial publicity.”
Judges may also issue strict instructions to disregard media reports to base decisions solely on trial evidence.
“In extreme cases, a change of venue or sequestration may occur to limit external influence, ensuring fairness,” Nikolic said.
“However, this case [involving Jones] has an extensive history and may prove difficult.”
“Jones’s defamation case against Nine could be affected by the criminal proceedings,” the Sydney-based criminal lawyer said.
“If his trial results in a conviction, his reputation would be compromised, possibly weakening his defamation claims.
“However, if acquitted, his case might gain credibility, arguing significant reputational damage.”
Courts may stop defamation actions if a concurrent criminal trial is underway, to prevent conflicts in evidence and preserve the integrity of the defamation case.
“Defamation has a number of important implications and procedures and it is possible that the courts will make accommodations to this end,” Nikolic said.
“This reliance on personal recollections can be problematic due to the fallibility of human memory and false memories can influence that evidence,” Nikolic said.
The lawyer said memory was a variable—especially when traumatic events are a factor—with some people having very clear recollections while others having false or distorted memories.
“Research indicates that while some individuals can accurately recall traumatic events after many years, others may develop false memories, particularly if suggestive therapeutic techniques are used,” he said.
Pell was charged with multiple offences in 2017, found guilty on five charges by a jury in 2018 and sentenced to six years in prison before an appeal led to his release from jail 400 days later.
In his appeal, Pell’s legal team argued that the verdict against him was unreasonable and that there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction.
Such is the nature of historical cases, and it can be hard to predict where they may land.
“Mr. Jones has the presumption of innocence, and it is important that we respect these presumptions, so we are not faced with a situation like former Cardinal Pell where he was publicly tried and later exonerated,” Nikolic said.
Nikolic said it was important that courts balance the rights of the accused with the need to provide justice for complainants, carefully considering the admissibility of evidence and the reliability of witness testimony.
In cases where a jury is asked to decide an alleged offender’s fate, they are instructed to determine that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
“Pell’s conviction was based largely on the testimony of a single complainant, with no corroborating physical evidence,” Nikolic said.
“The High Court of Australia ultimately acquitted Pell, citing that the evidence did not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
“In regards to the victims, we will allege that the accused knew some of them personally, some of them professionally,” he said.
“And we’ll also allege that some of the victims when the alleged offence took place, was the first time that they ever met the accused.”
Jones’s lawyer said his client would “assert his innocence” in court.
“He denies any misconduct. This matter will be defended,” defence lawyer Chris Murphy said.
“Mr. Jones will be defending this case. He’s presumed innocent.”