Duchess Of Cambridge Hoax Call Nurse Found Dead

[thaibeachlovers]

Whether or not some one has "standing" to bring a civil claim is an issue that will also be determined upon the rubric of "proximity".

Most of you old Pommies will remember that dreadful day when the soccer stadium collapsed killing many people.

A lot of people sought to bring civil actions for physcological shock after witnessing the tradgedy.

As you can imagine, the House of Lords needed to impose some sought of filter to limit the amount of people who had standing.

They relied upon proximity to provide this filter.

Interestingly, proximity can not only be determined by distance from the event itself, but also the closeness of ones relationship with a victim.

For example, if you were a member of the House of Lords back then, whom of the following would you have granted standing to bring a claim:

1. A person at the stadium, who witnessed several other strangers killed

2. A person at the stadium, who witnessed one of their own family killed

3. A mother sitting at home watching the live broadcast, who witnessed her own son killed

4. A person sitting at home watching the live broadcast, who witnessed some strangers killed

2 & 3, without giving it too much thought.

Then, by your logic, the family of the nurse, and perhaps her close friends and colleagues in her work place, may be granted standing by the Court to bring a claim against the DJs.

If I was family, or a work colleague, of the Nurse, I would approach the Nurses' Union were the victim was a member and ask that they provide, or assist with, funding for the action.

Most Unions also have a working relationship with legal counsel who, mostly likely, would commence the required litigation on a no win, no fee basis.

A smart thing to do would be to seek "punitive civil damages" this is an award of money, but its purpose is to demostrate publicly that what the DJs did is wrong and that similiar behaviour will not be tolerated by a reasonable society. A claim such as this would also stand a better chance of getting up in the Court because it has a moral objective and is not just a money grab.

< I would approach the Nurses' Union were the victim was a member and ask that they provide, or assist with, funding for the action.>

Good luck with that. UK nursing unions are, IMO, rubbish when it comes to supporting nurses, and I say that as an ex member of one of them.

Haven't you overlooked something? The DJs are living in Australia, and as they apparently have not broken any Oz laws, would not be deported to the UK for trial.

[Scott]

This discussion is going off-topic. Discuss the hoax call directly.

[Phronesis]

By my logic, in answering 2 & 3, it would not apply in this case

You are irrelevant.

There are thousands of bored, middle aged, upper middle class Brittish monarchists, any one of whom may decide to make application to the the Court, for standing in light of their perceived patriotic, civic, and moral responsibilities, to seek an award of punitive damages against the DJs

[BookMan]

By my logic, in answering 2 & 3, it would not apply in this case

You are irrelevant.

There are thousands of bored, middle aged, upper middle class Brittish monarchists, any one of whom may decide to make application to the the Court, for standing in light of their perceived patriotic, civic, and moral responsibilities, to seek an award of punitive damages against the DJs

Then, by your logic, the family of the nurse, and perhaps her close friends and colleagues in her work place, may be granted standing by the Court to bring a claim against the DJs.

Lucky, as you so kindly point out, I am irrelevant.

Edited December 29, 2012 by BookMan

[7by7]

Haven't you (Phronesis) overlooked something? The DJs are living in Australia, and as they apparently have not broken any Oz laws, would not be deported to the UK for trial.

They broke Australian law, or at least Australian broadcasting regulations, by broadcasting the call without first obtaining the victims' consent.

As Phronesis has pointed out, any civil case would not be based upon the intent of the perpetrators, but the effect of their actions and/or whether they were negligent. It is obvious to all that by not taking the required step of obtaining permission before broadcasting the call that they were negligent.

The family can sue in the Australian courts.

It is also possible to sue foreign nationals/residents through the UK courts. Whether or not the Australian authorities would assist in enforcing any judgment of a UK court against Australian citizens/residents I don't know.

[phuketjock]

Establishing criminality is difficult. The onus of proof is "Beyond Reasonable Doubt"...think 99%

Establishing negligence and liability for damages is a lot easier. The onus of proof is "On the Balance of Probabilty"...think 51%

That is why OJ Simpson escaped the murder charge but was subsequently sued successfully for civil damages for wrongful death.

The family of this poor nurse need to engage a legal represantive, and have him move quickly to place a caveat over the houses or any other assets of the two purile and idiotic DJs.

The civil claim could be based upon the rubric of physcological assault resulting in wrongful death. Lay down hand for the family of the nurse...

I know what you are saying, but while I sympathise with the nurse, there is no way I can see a jury taking someone's house over a prank call.

Let's face it, life isn't fair and bad things happen, but unless it could be proven the DJs intended malice against her, fat chance of a civil court case succeeding.

Where your case falls down entirely, is that she only transferred the call, and did not answer any questions/ was not involved with the majority of the hoax. A wet behind the ears new lawyer could prove that there was no intent by the hoaxers to cause her demise, or any harm.

Lets have a look at the facts, 2 DJs and there imature irresponsible boss/es deliberately set out at any cost to ridicule and

make a complete fool, in front of millions of listeners, of any one who answered that phone call, now I think most sensible people

in the world would rate that as a malicious act, unfortunately the cost of their so called "prank " turned out to be much more than

they had ever imagined. The sad suicide of one of their intended victims.

Well now they are wrapt with sorrow and regret, which they could have avoided had they given the slightest forethought to

their intended "prank" and considered the possible consquences of their foolish actions.

I for one hope they get everything they, and their bosses, deserve and then some!!!!!

[whybother]

Lets have a look at the facts, 2 DJs and there imature irresponsible boss/es deliberately set out at any cost to ridicule and

make a complete fool, in front of millions of listeners, of any one who answered that phone call, now I think most sensible people

in the world would rate that as a malicious act, unfortunately the cost of their so called "prank " turned out to be much more than

they had ever imagined. The sad suicide of one of their intended victims.

Well now they are wrapt with sorrow and regret, which they could have avoided had they given the slightest forethought to

their intended "prank" and considered the possible consquences of their foolish actions.

I for one hope they get everything they, and their bosses, deserve and then some!!!!!

So, I take it that you've never made fun of someone.

[phuketjock]

Lets have a look at the facts, 2 DJs and there imature irresponsible boss/es deliberately set out at any cost to ridicule and

make a complete fool, in front of millions of listeners, of any one who answered that phone call, now I think most sensible people

in the world would rate that as a malicious act, unfortunately the cost of their so called "prank " turned out to be much more than

they had ever imagined. The sad suicide of one of their intended victims.

Well now they are wrapt with sorrow and regret, which they could have avoided had they given the slightest forethought to

their intended "prank" and considered the possible consquences of their foolish actions.

I for one hope they get everything they, and their bosses, deserve and then some!!!!!

So, I take it that you've never made fun of someone.

Never made fun of someone I don't know and certainly not in front of several million

listeners, never felt the need to make a fool of anyone in such a childish manner.

[whybother]

Lets have a look at the facts, 2 DJs and there imature irresponsible boss/es deliberately set out at any cost to ridicule and

make a complete fool, in front of millions of listeners, of any one who answered that phone call, now I think most sensible people

in the world would rate that as a malicious act, unfortunately the cost of their so called "prank " turned out to be much more than

they had ever imagined. The sad suicide of one of their intended victims.

Well now they are wrapt with sorrow and regret, which they could have avoided had they given the slightest forethought to

their intended "prank" and considered the possible consquences of their foolish actions.

I for one hope they get everything they, and their bosses, deserve and then some!!!!!

So, I take it that you've never made fun of someone.

Never made fun of someone I don't know and certainly not in front of several million

listeners, never felt the need to make a fool of anyone in such a childish manner.

Given the number of pranks that DJs pull all over the world, I don't think that these DJs could foresee that someone they talked to for a moment would commit suicide.

Also, I'm not sure how "several million listeners" would have affected the nurse living on the other side of the planet.

Edited December 29, 2012 by whybother

[7by7]

The publicity was worldwide. The evidence points to this publicity shaming the nurse so much that it tipped her into suicide; even though she had not been named.

Also, yet again, you forget (deliberately?) that they broke the regulations, and possibly the law, when they broadcast the call without first obtaining their victims permission. Almost certainly because they knew that permission would not have been given.

No broadcast; no publicity. No publicity; no suicide.

[phuketjock]

Lets have a look at the facts, 2 DJs and there imature irresponsible boss/es deliberately set out at any cost to ridicule and

make a complete fool, in front of millions of listeners, of any one who answered that phone call, now I think most sensible people

in the world would rate that as a malicious act, unfortunately the cost of their so called "prank " turned out to be much more than

they had ever imagined. The sad suicide of one of their intended victims.

Well now they are wrapt with sorrow and regret, which they could have avoided had they given the slightest forethought to

their intended "prank" and considered the possible consquences of their foolish actions.

I for one hope they get everything they, and their bosses, deserve and then some!!!!!

So, I take it that you've never made fun of someone.

Never made fun of someone I don't know and certainly not in front of several million

listeners, never felt the need to make a fool of anyone in such a childish manner.

Given the number of pranks that DJs pull all over the world, I don't think that these DJs could foresee that someone they talked to for a moment would commit suicide.

Also, I'm not sure how "several million listeners" would have affected the nurse living on the other side of the planet.

This is the only so called "prank" of the many you claim are pulled all over the world that has caused a victim to take her own

life. Could this possibly be because most of these world "pranks" are pulled by responsible radio and TV stations who take

considerable care in planning and executing these "pranks" to ensure that minimum offense is given to anyone.

But as your name says whybother it's just a harmless "prank" kind of sums the attitude of the DJs and their radio station

up.

Well you may not have gathered but it was broadcast not only on the other side of the world, but worldwide!!!

Edited December 29, 2012 by phuketjock

[BookMan]

...This is the only so called "prank" of the many you claim are pulled all over the world that has caused a victim to take her own

life. ...

We come back to the beginning of this discussion. Whether or not the brief phone transfer was the cause of her suicide.

The prank would seem not to be the cause as she had pre existing conditions relating to depression and suicide. That fact was widely speculated on this tread before being confirmed as fact

[7by7]

It has not been confirmed as fact that her other issues, if she still had them, caused her suicide. All that has been confirmed is that she had issues in the past.

The reported contents of the three notes she left show that, whatever other issues she may or may not have had, the call and her part in it did play a significant role in her decision to end her life when she did.

What is a definite fact is that the call should never have been broadcast because they did not have the permission of the victims to do so. That is what makes this call different from all the others that you and others keep on mentioning in your attempts to justify the actions of the two DJs and their bosses.

[Phronesis]

Wow...

You guys just keep going round and round arguing over stuff that isn't even relevant or trying to obfuscate stuff that has already been explained to you in palucid terms.

OK...one more time for the dummies:

Criminal Proceedings

To convict the DJs the prosecutor must prove both of the following elements beyond reasonable doubt (think 99%):

1. Actus Reus (the act). This is usually not even an issue. As in this case...Did the guys make the phone call. Answer: YES

2. Mens Rea (the guilty mind). This is usually where most criminal prosecutions fall over because intention is not easy to prove. This is why the Police are reluctant to prosecute because they know the proceeding won't get past this second element of the offence...Did the guys intend (beyond reasonable doubt) that their phone call would result in the death of the nurse. Answer: NO

Legal Analysis: Actus Reus: YES Mens Rea: NO. With only one of the two required elements established the prosecution would fail. To repeat, this is why the UK Police have not issued any charges (yet).

Civil Proceedings

The party bringing the claim must establish all three of the following elements on the balance of probabilty (think 51%):

1. That the DJs owed a Duty of Care to the nurse. The Answer here is clearly YES. Why?...because there is already broadcasting legislation in place that documents their duties

2. It must then be established that the DJs breached their Duty of Care. The Answer here is clearly YES. Why?...because there are already statutory laws in place to govern how DJs must conduct themselves and the pair in question broke those laws.

3. That the DJs Breach of Their Duty of Care caused the death of the nurse. The Answer here is a YES or NO. The Court can apply a number of different tests in order to establish causation. I have already discussed one of these tests, Proximity, in detail in earlier posts. Two other tests that may be applied by the Court are Foreseeability and the But For test. For example the jury may be asked to consider whether it was Foreseeable that the actions of the DJs would result in the death of the nurse. The Answer here is a YES or NO depending on your own subject views of what is Reasonable behaviour. As another example the jury may be asked to consider the following question: Would the nurse have died BUT FOR the actions of the DJs. The answer here is a resounding YES. No phone call...No death.

Legal Analysis: Establish element 1: YES. Establish element 2: YES Establish element 3: YES or NO depending on the test that the Court directs the jury to apply. Foreseeability: NO to NOish But For: YES. The party bringing the claim against the DJs has good prospects of a successful outcome. Especially if pursuing Punitive Damages (See my post above regarding the social objective of Punitive Damages).

Edited December 29, 2012 by Phronesis

[BookMan]

An excellent pellucid answer, as you often make on the threads

Wow...

You guys just keep going round and round arguing over stuff that isn't even relevant or trying to obfuscate stuff that has already been explained to you in palucid terms.

But a shame you always have to lead in with a put down such as this

OK...one more time for the dummies:

[chooka]

Establishing criminality is difficult. The onus of proof is "Beyond Reasonable Doubt"...think 99%

Establishing negligence and liability for damages is a lot easier. The onus of proof is "On the Balance of Probabilty"...think 51%

That is why OJ Simpson escaped the murder charge but was subsequently sued successfully for civil damages for wrongful death.

The family of this poor nurse need to engage a legal represantive, and have him move quickly to place a caveat over the houses or any other assets of the two purile and idiotic DJs.

The civil claim could be based upon the rubric of physcological assault resulting in wrongful death. Lay down hand for the family of the nurse...

The problem with that is, Australia is not America and that sort of civil action will not happen.

[chooka]

Wow...

You guys just keep going round and round arguing over stuff that isn't even relevant or trying to obfuscate stuff that has already been explained to you in palucid terms.

OK...one more time for the dummies:

Criminal Proceedings

To convict the DJs the prosecutor must prove both of the following elements beyond reasonable doubt (think 99%):

1. Actus Reus (the act). This is usually not even an issue. As in this case...Did the guys make the phone call. Answer: YES

2. Mens Rea (the guilty mind). This is usually where most criminal prosecutions fall over because intention is not easy to prove. This is why the Police are reluctant to prosecute because they know the proceeding won't get past this second element of the offence...Did the guys intend (beyond reasonable doubt) that their phone call would result in the death of the nurse. Answer: NO

Legal Analysis: Actus Reus: YES Mens Rea: NO. With only one of the two required elements established the prosecution would fail. To repeat, this is why the UK Police have not issued any charges (yet).

Civil Proceedings

The party bringing the claim must establish all three of the following elements on the balance of probabilty (think 51%):

1. That the DJs owed a Duty of Care to the nurse. The Answer here is clearly YES. Why?...because there is already broadcasting legislation in place that documents their duties

2. It must then be established that the DJs breached their Duty of Care. The Answer here is clearly YES. Why?...because there are already statutory laws in place to govern how DJs must conduct themselves and the pair in question broke those laws.

3. That the DJs Breach of Their Duty of Care caused the death of the nurse. The Answer here is a YES or NO. The Court can apply a number of different tests in order to establish causation. I have already discussed one of these tests, Proximity, in detail in earlier posts. Two other tests that may be applied by the Court are Foreseeability and the But For test. For example the jury may be asked to consider whether it was Foreseeable that the actions of the DJs would result in the death of the nurse. The Answer here is a YES or NO depending on your own subject views of what is Reasonable behaviour. As another example the jury may be asked to consider the following question: Would the nurse have died BUT FOR the actions of the DJs. The answer here is a resounding YES. No phone call...No death.

Legal Analysis: Establish element 1: YES. Establish element 2: YES Establish element 3: YES or NO depending on the test that the Court directs the jury to apply. Foreseeability: NO to NOish But For: YES. The party bringing the claim against the DJs has good prospects of a successful outcome. Especially if pursuing Punitive Damages (See my post above regarding the social objective of Punitive Damages).

Who made the phone call, the D.J's or the producers running the show whilst they follow the script?

No phone call No death?????? That is total rubbish as she made at least two previous attempts before the phone call. She was hell bent on killing herself.

[chooka]

It has not been confirmed as fact that her other issues, if she still had them, caused her suicide. All that has been confirmed is that she had issues in the past.

The reported contents of the three notes she left show that, whatever other issues she may or may not have had, the call and her part in it did play a significant role in her decision to end her life when she did.

What is a definite fact is that the call should never have been broadcast because they did not have the permission of the victims to do so. That is what makes this call different from all the others that you and others keep on mentioning in your attempts to justify the actions of the two DJs and their bosses.

She mentioned the D.J's in ONE note and NOT THREE notes and it is not confirmed that what she said about the D.J's was the cause of her death. She mentioned them but what did she say? I haven't read "THE" note she mentioned the D.J's so I can't actually say but if you have then you would know 100%

[chooka]

Establishing criminality is difficult. The onus of proof is "Beyond Reasonable Doubt"...think 99%

Establishing negligence and liability for damages is a lot easier. The onus of proof is "On the Balance of Probabilty"...think 51%

That is why OJ Simpson escaped the murder charge but was subsequently sued successfully for civil damages for wrongful death.

The family of this poor nurse need to engage a legal represantive, and have him move quickly to place a caveat over the houses or any other assets of the two purile and idiotic DJs.

The civil claim could be based upon the rubric of physcological assault resulting in wrongful death. Lay down hand for the family of the nurse...

I know what you are saying, but while I sympathise with the nurse, there is no way I can see a jury taking someone's house over a prank call.

Let's face it, life isn't fair and bad things happen, but unless it could be proven the DJs intended malice against her, fat chance of a civil court case succeeding.

Where your case falls down entirely, is that she only transferred the call, and did not answer any questions/ was not involved with the majority of the hoax. A wet behind the ears new lawyer could prove that there was no intent by the hoaxers to cause her demise, or any harm.

Lets have a look at the facts, 2 DJs and there imature irresponsible boss/es deliberately set out at any cost to ridicule and

make a complete fool, in front of millions of listeners, of any one who answered that phone call, now I think most sensible people

in the world would rate that as a malicious act, unfortunately the cost of their so called "prank " turned out to be much more than

they had ever imagined. The sad suicide of one of their intended victims.

Well now they are wrapt with sorrow and regret, which they could have avoided had they given the slightest forethought to

their intended "prank" and considered the possible consquences of their foolish actions.

I for one hope they get everything they, and their bosses, deserve and then some!!!!!

It is not millions of listeners, a couple of thousand maybe as it was a local radio staion in Sydney, not a National Station. Please do not totally over exagerate. "The sad suicide of one of their intended victims".She was not an intended victim as you say also. You are so hell bent of gutting these people and dragging thier intenstines through the streets so you can rejoice. They worked for a radio station, turn your attention to them and I may support you. Edited December 29, 2012 by chooka

[7by7]

I did not say how many of her notes she mentioned the DJ in, just that the reported contents of the three notes show...........

Yes, she had, reportedly, attempted suicide before; long before the phone call!

As has been repeatedly said, whatever other issues she may or may not have had in her life the notes she left behind clearly show that the phone call and her part in it was a significant cause of pushing her over the edge and so was a significant cause in her decision to end her life when she did.

If the phone call had not been made or if she had not been involved in it then she almost certainly would still be alive today.

I know I'm repeating myself, but you obviously didn't read it properly the last time I wrote it.

It may have been a small local station in Sydney, but they did what they could to ensure that the tape was broadcast all over the world; so millions did hear it.

Doubtless they thought doing so would be good publicity for them; but the backlash against this gross invasion of privacy started almost immediatley; before the poor nurse killed herself.

Edited December 29, 2012 by 7by7

[chooka]

I did not say how many of her notes she mentioned the DJ in, just that the reported contents of the three notes show...........

Yes, she had, reportedly, attempted suicide before; long before the phone call!

As has been repeatedly said, whatever other issues she may or may not have had in her life the notes she left behind clearly show that the phone call and her part in it was a significant cause of pushing her over the edge and so was a significant cause in her decision to end her life when she did.

If the phone call had not been made or if she had not been involved in it then she almost certainly would still be alive today.

I know I'm repeating myself, but you obviously didn't read it properly the last time I wrote it.

It may have been a small local station in Sydney, but they did what they could to ensure that the tape was broadcast all over the world; so millions did hear it.

Doubtless they thought doing so would be good publicity for them; but the backlash against this gross invasion of privacy started almost immediatley; before the poor nurse killed herself.

"If the phone call had not been made or if she had not been involved in it then she almost certainly would still be alive today.

How can you say that without question given her efforts to take her life previously?

Nothing against you personally but a few on here are 100% certain that transfering a telephone call was what caused her death.

Edited December 29, 2012 by chooka

[Phronesis]

Establishing criminality is difficult. The onus of proof is "Beyond Reasonable Doubt"...think 99%

Establishing negligence and liability for damages is a lot easier. The onus of proof is "On the Balance of Probabilty"...think 51%

That is why OJ Simpson escaped the murder charge but was subsequently sued successfully for civil damages for wrongful death.

The family of this poor nurse need to engage a legal represantive, and have him move quickly to place a caveat over the houses or any other assets of the two purile and idiotic DJs.

The civil claim could be based upon the rubric of physcological assault resulting in wrongful death. Lay down hand for the family of the nurse...

The problem with that is, Australia is not America and that sort of civil action will not happen.

WRONG

Per Capita, that is, in consideration of the differences in population, Australia is more litigious than the USA

[Phronesis]

Who made the phone call, the D.J's or the producers running the show whilst they follow the script?

An irrelevant issue.

If the legal counsel that drafts the civil claim is worth his salt he will join both the DJs and their Employers as co-defendants in the pleadings.

Concurrent litigation will then arise between the DJs and their Employers. It will focus on the legal rubric of Agency.

In simple terms:

If someone is employed, and they are working as per the instructions or guidelines provided by their employer, and they cause damage to another party, then the Employer is liable for that damage because it was caused by their Employee (the Agent).

However, if someone is employed, and they do not follow the instructions or guidelines provided by their employer, and they cause damage to another party, then the Employer is not liable for that damage. The age old terminology that appears in case law surrounding this issue is that the employee was "off on a frolic of his own".

Some working examples:

1. Employer instructs an employee to cut down a tree. Employee cuts down the tree as per the instructions of Employer BUT it is the wrong tree. Owner of the land where the tree was cut down can then sue the Employer for damages pursuant to Agency law.

2. An apprentice takes off secretly in his lunch break in a work vehicle. He meets up with friends and uses the work vehicle to compete in a drag race. He crashes the vehicle and destroys several houses in a suburban street. Suing the Employer of the apprentice in these circumstances is very problematic because he can rely on Agency law to argue that he is not liable because the apprentice was off on a frolic of his own.

Applying these legal principles to the case at hand, it is clear that the Radio station, Producer, or other bosses of the DJs will, once they are joined to the proceedings as co-defendants, and in order to avoid liability, seek to establish that the DJs were off on a frolic of their own. And proving this point should be easy because the bosses will just point to the legislative guidelines that the DJs failed to comply with.

Thus the DJs will have to engage their own counsel and will not be able to rely on the counsel engaged by, and paid for, by their bosses.

Edited December 30, 2012 by Phronesis

[simple1]

Who made the phone call, the D.J's or the producers running the show whilst they follow the script?

An irrelevant issue.

If the legal counsel that drafts the civil claim is worth his salt he will join both the DJs and their Employers as co-defendants in the pleadings.

Concurrent litigation will then arise between the DJs and their Employers. It will focus on the legal rubric of Agency.

In simple terms:

If someone is employed, and they are working as per the instructions or guidelines provided by their employer, and they cause damage to another party, then the Employer is liable for that damage because it was caused by their Employee (the Agent).

However, if someone is employed, and they do not follow the instructions or guidelines provided by their employer, and they cause damage to another party, then the Employer is not liable for that damage. The age old terminology that appears in case law surrounding this issue is that the employee was "off on a frolic of his own".

Some working examples:

1. Employer instructs an employee to cut down a tree. Employee cuts down the tree as per the instructions of Employer BUT it is the wrong tree. Owner of the land where the tree was cut down can then sue the Employer for damages pursuant to Agency law.

2. An apprentice takes off secretly in his lunch break in a work vehicle. He meets up with friends and uses the work vehicle to compete in a drag race. He crashes the vehicle and destroys several houses in a suburban street. Suing the Employer of the apprentice in these circumstances is very problematic because he can rely on Agency law to argue that he is not liable because the apprentice was off on a frolic of his own.

Applying these legal principles to the case at hand, it is clear that the Radio station, Producer, or other bosses of the DJs will, once they are joined to the proceedings as co-defendants, and in order to avoid liability, seek to establish that the DJs were off on a frolic of their own. And proving this point should be easy because the bosses will just point to the legislative guidelines that the DJs failed to comply with.

Thus the DJs will have to engage their own counsel and will not be able to rely on the counsel engaged by, and paid for, by their bosses.

The employer has admitted that their lawyer (assume in-house) had reviewed the recording of the phone call and permitted broadcast, even though the radio station had not complied to legislation that requires permission of the outside party to broadcast nor informed the outside party that the phone call was being recorded, also a breach of Australian law. I recall the radio station management had stated they attempted to contact the nurses prior to broadcast, so I guess (not being a lawyer) that they will go down the path of reasonable effort.

Edited December 30, 2012 by simple1

[7by7]

If the phone call had not been made or if she had not been involved in it then she almost certainly would still be alive today.

"If the phone call had not been made or if she had not been involved in it then she almost certainly would still be alive today.

How can you say that without question given her efforts to take her life previously?

Nothing against you personally but a few on here are 100% certain that transfering a telephone call was what caused her death.

You missed out an important word in your highlighting of what I said: ALMOST.

She, reportedly, had made attempts on her life before; but not for some time. Something must have tipped her over the edge and caused her to take her life at this time.

Given the timing and the reported contents of her notes, that her part in the call was that thing is a reasonable assumption.

Yes, assumption.

But, all the, reported, evidence shows that her part in the call was the final straw that caused her to end her life when she did. Until, and unless, other evidence is published to show otherwise, that is what I believe.

If the inquest rules otherwise, I will accept that. If it rules that the call did play a part in her decision; will you accept that?

[7by7]

The employer has admitted that their lawyer (assume in-house) had reviewed the recording of the phone call and permitted broadcast, even though the radio station had not complied to legislation that requires permission of the outside party to broadcast nor informed the outside party that the phone call was being recorded, also a breach of Australian law. I recall the radio station management had stated they attempted to contact the nurses prior to broadcast, so I guess (not being a lawyer) that they will go down the path of reasonable effort.

I, too, am not a lawyer and stand to be corrected; but I don't see how making a reasonable effort can be a defence.

As I understand it, the regulations require the permission of the victims to be obtained before a hoax call is broadcast.

Not that a reasonable effort to obtain permission be made, but that permission definitely is obtained.

That permission was not obtained, so the call should not have been broadcast.

Even if this call had not ended in tragedy that would be sufficient, as I understand it, for the victims to sue.

[BookMan]

If the phone call had not been made or if she had not been involved in it then she almost certainly would still be alive today.

"If the phone call had not been made or if she had not been involved in it then she almost certainly would still be alive today.

How can you say that without question given her efforts to take her life previously?

Nothing against you personally but a few on here are 100% certain that transfering a telephone call was what caused her death.

You missed out an important word in your highlighting of what I said: ALMOST.

She, reportedly, had made attempts on her life before; but not for some time. Something must have tipped her over the edge and caused her to take her life at this time.

Given the timing and the reported contents of her notes, that her part in the call was that thing is a reasonable assumption.

Yes, assumption.

But, all the, reported, evidence shows that her part in the call was the final straw that caused her to end her life when she did. Until, and unless, other evidence is published to show otherwise, that is what I believe.

If the inquest rules otherwise, I will accept that. If it rules that the call did play a part in her decision; will you accept that?

For myself, I have always agreed it was a trigger.

The issue is are the DJs responsible and for that I say no

[7by7]

The DJs made the call, their bosses approved it's broadcast.

Both must bear the responsibility for the consequences.

[BookMan]

The DJs made the call, their bosses approved it's broadcast.

Both must bear the responsibility for the consequences.

And lets not forget anyone who found it funny!!

[Scott]

Off-topic discussion deleted.