ABC personality charged over child porn
June 11, 2010, 1:06 pm



ABC personality Andy Muirhead has been charged with a child porn offence, the broadcaster's website said on Friday.

Muirhead has become a household name as the host of Collectors.

The ABC website said the Australian Federal Police had charged Andrew Robert Muirhead with downloading or accessing computer images of child pornography.

"The Australian Federal Police has confirmed computer equipment was seized from the 34-year-old's home in Hobart during a search on Tuesday," The ABC said.

"Muirhead, the host of popular ABC program Collectors, has been charged with one count of using the internet to access child pornography."

"The ABC was notified late yesterday by Muirhead's management that he had been charged with a serious offence."

"ABC Corporate Affairs says Muirhead has taken unpaid leave."

The Collectors website was taken off-line this afternoon and the ABC said Muirhead would not present Collectors on ABC TV, nor the breakfast program on ABC Local Radio in Hobart pending the outcome of the legal proceedings.

The ABC said the Collectors program on ABC1 would be off air until further notice.
Muirhead will appear in Hobart Magistrates Court on August 2.

I know doggie..
But...do you really think they would put it in the news..if they did not have enough
evidence? It does say charged!

And I am hoping they got it all wrong
I really like him...but this will ruin him.
and if he is found not guilty...it has still ruined him..and that won't impress me

Reminds me of the downfall of Pee Wee Herman. Something doesn't seem right.

I'm a bit confused by the assasination by media.
If he's innocent, his name is mud.
If he's guilty, well....

What about the rest of the Collectors folk? One of my favourite Oz shows.


and now for the bad joke-

This weeks Mystery Object is?

Andy's Hard Drive.

I bet he claims it was research!!!! Why would he get a suppression order?? Justice behind closed doors is only good for the conspiracy theory people.

As of now, guilty or innocent, his career is over. If he is guilty then its no good but honestly the way its presented.... its as if he is worse than Hitler. Child pornography is obscene and disgusting. However why is the same not argued for movies displaying gratuitous violence including torture, sadism and murder? Some violent shows are on prime time TV.

If its untrue and he did not possess this material it doesn't really matter. His career is over and he is an unperson.

Mark _australia said...

A supression order does not mean it is behind closed doors, anyone can go in and listen a sper usual but it simply means the press cannot print their name.
They are only granted in exceptional circumstances and I can't think of very many

True enough not quit closed doors however you cant be at every case to hear whats going on so we have the press. If they are gaged then how will I know whats going on. Maybe in WA they are rare but in Vic they are common place in fact im sure VCAT can issue & lift them!!!! If you lived in a state with so much corruption you too would be suspicious.

http://www.hrlrc.org.au/year/2009/xfj-v-director-of-public-transport-occupational-and-business-regulation-2009-vcat-96-9-february-2009/

only exceptional circumstance is that i could ride in his taxi. Sorry for going off topic

Don't know the law on this but if you googled something and clicked through a link and inadvertantly brought up some of this child porn are you immediately breaking the law 'cos it's now stored in the cache/internet history on your hard drive?

Or do you have to show intent and repeat behaviour? The report says "one count" - so does that mean a single web page viewed once? or what?

Anytime you go a google image search you always get dodgy stuff back buried amongst the intended stuff. Is that enough to turn you into a child pornographer?

I reckon it's 99% likely that he was looking at porn (not illegal!) and ended up somewhere more dodgy before he realised. It's a personal disaster for him whether he's innocent or guilty. Once it's reported no one cares whether it's alleged, charged or convicted. The masses get to vent their ill-considered outrage, the guilty witch is burnt at the stake and the masses go home happy that their children can sleep safe again. Sad but true.

The abc of tv and rad stars mostly seem a little limpwristed, a little sooky, and

somewhat perverted. Just cany handle most of them and that grandstand

group are up themselves to the bollics. They seemed to start turning about 20

year ago. Its all gone down the gurgeler big time, its basically crap,

Sad sad news for all concerned.

doggie said...

Dunno if posting that is a good thing, he hasnt been to court yet.

Should be ok as all the major news sources named him.

The ones to look out for is when one of them "accidentally" names them, because even if you quote their article you are still breaking the law.

Cambodge said...

Don't know the law on this but if you googled something and clicked through a link and inadvertantly brought up some of this child porn are you immediately breaking the law 'cos it's now stored in the cache/internet history on your hard drive?

Or do you have to show intent and repeat behaviour? The report says "one count" - so does that mean a single web page viewed once? or what?

Anytime you go a google image search you always get dodgy stuff back buried amongst the intended stuff. Is that enough to turn you into a child pornographer?

I reckon it's 99% likely that he was looking at porn (not illegal!) and ended up somewhere more dodgy before he realised. It's a personal disaster for him whether he's innocent or guilty. Once it's reported no one cares whether it's alleged, charged or convicted. The masses get to vent their ill-considered outrage, the guilty witch is burnt at the stake and the masses go home happy that their children can sleep safe again. Sad but true.

The person who reported the offending material would have also witnessed it - maybe he/she should be on the same charges.

It would have to be a crap job investigating people who download and propagate this horid stuff. I hope they got it right.

It's going to devastate Tas ABC - that's the only TV program they produce there. I met some of the crew last year. Can't wait to hear the gossip.

GalahOnTheBay said...

Interesting question indeed, especially given the following, which seem to paint a pretty clear picture of the way these are treated in a court:

http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/garyhughes/index.php/theaustralian/comments/downloading_a_child_porn_dilemma/

www.tweednews.com.au/story/2010/05/19/no-jail-despite-child-porn/

www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/05/2266046.htm

1st link:-

Martin Kear admitted visiting a child pornography internet site and using his credit card to pay for a subscription.

And this was dismissed..WTHELL!!!!!

2nd link:-

Storer claimed the downloads had been accidental and that the child porn files had come along with adult pornography he had intentionally downloaded.

Well Thats is Utter CRAP!!!!

However, despite claiming to be disgusted by the images and film, the court heard Storer had saved 58 child porn images and videos to his computer, compact discs and DVDs.

I'm sorry a suspended sentence WTHELL again!!!!

If a (legally) child views or downloads child pornography, has a crime been committed?

Just a question on moral and legal issues.

GypsyDrifter said...
I thought we were more intelligent than that.

One would at least hope so.

No arguement with you on that one japie.