Editorial: Legal system condemned by public opinion
Amid all the pre-election posturing on law and order, the Eugene McGee case is further proof that a legal system is not necessarily the same thing as a justice system.

Unsurprisingly, the decision of a District Court judge to acquit McGee and his brother Craig of conspiring to pervert the course of justice has created widespread community outrage.

The established facts, on the face of it, appear damning.

Eugene McGee – a senior criminal barrister and former police officer – has a long lunch, during which he consumes alcohol, then hits and kills a cyclist on a country road while driving home.

He flees the scene, makes numerous phone calls to his lawyer and brother, is driven back to Adelaide by Craig McGee, and is finally arrested more than six hours after the crash.

Judge Peter Herriman’s findings were complicated, but essentially boiled down to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the brothers had conspired to avoid police.

Rightly or wrongly, the McGee case has created a public perception that the wealthy and well-connected receive different treatment in South Australia’s courts.

It beggars belief that the only penalty for a lawyer who hit and killed a man after drinking alcohol, then hid from police for hours, is a $3100 fine.

As Di Gilcrist, the devastated widow of cyclist Ian Humphrey, said outside court: “It’s a sad reflection of the criminal justice system that something so black and white could be manipulated to absolve Eugene McGee of his lack of moral and ethical responsibility.”

At a time when police, road safety authorities and The Advertiser are campaigning relentlessly to reduce our unacceptably high road toll, this sends an unfortunate message.

It would be crass to suggest that anything good has come out of this tragic case. Certainly, the legal system stands condemned in the court of public opinion.

But at least the recommendations of the Kapunda Rd Royal Commission led to the Rann Government significantly tough-

ening laws for drivers involved in serious accidents.

Drivers are now required to present themselves to police within 90 minutes of a serious crash, and submit to an alcohol or drug test. They also now face 15-year jail terms for leaving the scene.

We can only hope these beefed-up laws prevent any other South Australians from experiencing the drawn-out legal torment of Ms Gilcrist, who has displayed extraordinary grace and dignity.

It is a well-established legal maxim that justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.

Few could argue that has been the case in this sorry saga.

Responsibility for all editorial comment is taken by The Editor, Melvin Mansell,31 Waymouth St, Adelaide, SA 5000