The Mercury 2nd Article
The 2nd article was new, not UPDATED, published more than 24 hours after the 1st. The damage was done by then.
Not marking it as UPDATED meant that those who had read the 1st article, did not read the 2nd article. Massive damage was done to my reputation. And the 1st article was shared and boosted all over social media.
Even still, the 2nd article has a lot of errors:
It calls XX "an elderly tenant in his son's West Moonah unit". She's not elderly, being 10+ years younger than me. She is not a tenant in my son's unit. She is 2 doors away.
The article states that I told the Mercury this was merely a "squabble between neighbours" that should never have come to court. That's what the Magistrate said. I just agreed with the Magistrate.
The Mercury did include, in the 2nd article, the following statement that was not in the 1st article:
"During sentencing Magistrate Chris Webster remarked his frustration with the proceedings, remarking, '40 years in law and I’m stuck with this … for God’s sake … there’s people in Risdon who want to get out of prison and they can’t get attended to because we’re listening to two neighbours …'"
Let's be clear: the Magistrate said it was a squabble between neighbours.
What did the Mercury mean by: "During sentencing ...". There was no sentencing. It was a hearing. When he said this, the Magistrate was speaking directly to, and chastising, XX, not me. Another serious error by the Mercury,
Like the 1st article, the 2nd article makes no mention of XX's history of being involved in interim restraining orders.
The Magistrate said that my sending a letter, lodged with the Court, should have been allowed. He also lamented the fact that XX had brought this menial dispute to the court.
And, the Magistrate did not find me guilty of a 'breach'. Both the 1st and 2nd articles in the Mercury state that I 'was sentenced for breaching the order against XX'.
This is what the Magistrate said:
"I should have made it a condition that you be able to write to her so that you could do exactly what you tried to do, that is, resolve the matter … so I won't record a conviction or further proceedings for 12 months."
Clearly, a conviction was not recorded. And the Magistrate understood that I was trying to “resolve the matter”. This was a serious damaging statement by the Mercury, in both articles.