The "Independent Commission Against Corruption"

or "ICAC" as it is commonly known is supposed to be just that. Perhaps it is. Perhaps it really is independent. Maybe it really does have a role to play in fighting corruption.
But yesterday I was bailed up by someone in the street. He's a well read man and he works in law enforcement. 
He wasn't happy about the report I mentioned in yesterday's blog post. He wasn't too happy with my blog post.
    "You should have pointed out that the inquiry was conducted behind closed doors."
Yes, I suppose I should have mentioned that. I am therefore mentioning it now. 
    "Inquiries like that should not be conducted in secret," he told me, "There might be occasional evidence that needs to be heard in camera but these things need to be out in the open."
There are pros and cons to that of course. He recognises that. I can too. 
On the whole however I agree. Investigations into corruption or maladministration or sheer incompetence and dereliction of duty need to be open. They need to be open but not necessarily reported on unless it is in the public interest to do so.
I think that may be the problem. The information needs to be available but the way modern media works it can cause other problems.
When I was speaking to the man who had bailed me up they had just arrested the man alleged to be responsible for the death of the NCA officer in an explosion in a city office 24 years ago. It was an event that was considered to be the first "terrorist" attack in this country. The man they arrested was the chief suspect at the time. The evidence was not there then. They have kept investigating and now believe they have enough to charge him.
Yes, we can ask what has taken so long. In this case it may well be that forensics have improved - or that a tiny piece of information has been added. Corruption isn't likely to be an issue.
But if there was a whiff of corruption about the case then I know that I believe we would have the right to know and that any inquiry should be conducted in public unless it would prejudice someone to the right of a fair trial. 
The media is a problem here. They want to tell the story but there are things which might need to be withheld until a case goes to court. I know a number of journalists who find that very frustrating. More than once they have said things like, 
    "It's a big story and we can't run it!"
But the inquiry that was published yesterday should have been conducted openly. There are gaps in it. It is obvious information was withheld from the person conducting the inquiry. If the inquiry had been open other people might have been able to come forward with crucial information about what had been going on.
It is getting that balance right which is a problem. There is a right to know but there is also a right to a fair trial - and there is a right to a fair trial and also a right to know.