LAST week in the Perth District Court Fairfax Media was accused of being ‘over-dramatic’ in its reporting of hidden cameras in a public toilet block.
In defending a man who placed the cameras to film women going to the toilet, local lawyer Robert Lombardi told the presiding judge the news organisation had used emotive language which had a detrimental effect on his client.
Mr Lombardi referred to “alarmist press coverage” with the story of the hidden cameras being “over-dramatised by local reporters”.
In case anyone missed the story, the case involved a 45-year-old man placing cameras behind the toilet seats in a Waroona public toilet block in April this year.
For five hours the cameras filmed women and children undressing, urinating and defecating.
The cameras – which were ultimately found by cleaners – captured footage described as “very high quality”.
Among the 90-odd people illicitly filmed were 12 children younger than 13.
A former Meadow Springs man pleaded guilty to the indecent recording of the children.
A number of Bunbury Mail stories about the case referred to the offender as a “pervert”.
It was this word, in particular, which incensed Mr Lombardi.
But let’s think about it.
The Oxford dictionary defines a pervert as someone whose sexual behaviour is regarded as abnormal and unacceptable.
In his remarks to the court, Mr Lombardi described his client as having “an unhealthy interest in voyeurism” and said the images captured on the hidden cameras were for his client’s “personal use”.
This is a man who filmed unsuspecting women and children going to the toilet for his own sexual gratification.
So, was the use of the word ‘pervert’ too emotive?
We think not.
We think it describes him perfectly.
