ROBERT FARQUHARSONBy Ashleigh Kwong, Kevin Kingsley, Kirra Havemann & Nikita Ash

FACTS OF THE CASE

Robert Farquharson, divorcee, was driving with his three sons on Father’s Day when the car veered off the road and drove into a lake

The three sons were trapped and drowned but Farquharson escaped

Farquharson charged with three counts of murder and found guilty by jury

Defence claimed that Farquharson had suffered from a coughing fit causing him to lose control of the vehicle

Appeal pending on 31 grounds (defence)

FACT BEFORE THEORY INTERNET CAMPAIGN

Facebook group established by Farquharson sympathizers to campaign for his freedom

Uses photographs (police as well as family) to humanize Farquharson and make him the victim

Biased representation of police evidence and court proceedings

Supposedly ineffective police work highlighted by campaign

LEGAL ISSUES RELATING TO SOCIAL MEDIA

Difficult for courts to “quarantine” jurors and prevent bias

Easily accessible materials that are presented as evidence externally

Changes in public perception of justice through social media which do not match legal definitions

Jurors instructed to ignore media representations of the case but it is becoming increasingly difficult to do so

EXAMPLE OF CONTRADICTING PERSPECTIVES

Police Evidence Social Media

• Photographs taken of tire tracks and yellow paint used to mark direction

• Used to establish guilt i.e. prove that Farquharson must have intentionally veered off the road to create such marks

• Focus on defence’s questioning of photographs

• Yellow paint shown to be incorrectly applied

• According to defence, Farquharson lost control and the vehicle moved in an arc (contrary to yellow marks)

• Facebook campaign used this error to highlight police injustice

• Used to show proof of reasonable doubt