Legislation should set out the following as an illustrative list of statements that may constitute sub judice contempt if they also comply with the requirements set out in Proposal 3:

1. A statement that suggests, or from which it could reasonably be inferred, that the accused has a previous criminal conviction, has been previously charged for committing an offence and/or previously acquitted, or been otherwise involved in other criminal activity;

2. A statement that suggests, or from which it could reasonably be inferred, that the accused has confessed to committing the crime in question;

3. A statement that suggests, or from which it could reasonably be inferred, that the accused is guilty or innocent of the crime for which he or she is charged, or that the jury should convict or acquit the accused;

4. A statement that could reasonably be regarded to incite sympathy or antipathy for the accused and/or to disparage the prosecution, or to make favourable or unfavourable references to the character or credibility of the accused or of a witness;

5. A photograph, sketch or other likeness of the accused, or a physical description of the accused.

The legislation should make it clear that this list is not exhaustive and that a statement may amount to a contempt even though it does not fall within one of the categories listed above.

The table also looks at the penalty imposed in case of conviction, as well as whether the respondents have been ordered to pay the costs of the contempt proceedings.

NEW SOUTH WALES

(1) Successful prosecutions

CASE
Attorney General (NSW) v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd [1980] 1 NSWLR 362
PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL
Newspaper article in The Sun alleging the accused, charged with the murder of his mongoloid son, had made admissions to the police. The article was published before reference had been made in Court to the alleged statements.
FALLS UNDER PROPOSAL 4? IF SO WHICH CATEGORY?
2
PENALTIES AND COSTS
$10,000 plus costs (Publisher)

CASE
Attorney General (NSW) v Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1980] 1 NSWLR 374
PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL
Newspaper article in The Daily Telegraph containing statements of a ride attendant from Luna Park whom the police intended to use as a witness in the Coroners Court in relation to a fire. The article was published before the attendant was called to give evidence.
FALLS UNDER PROPOSAL 4? IF SO WHICH CATEGORY?
Does not belong to any of the categories.
The publication was contemptuous due to the possible effect it could have on witnesses. Firstly, the person who made the statement may feel constrained to keep to their published account. Secondly, other witnesses encountering the publication might be influenced by it and give different evidence to that they would otherwise have given. Moreover, because the published statement contradicted the testimony of a previous witness, it may imply that the latter gave a wrong account and may even discourage other potential witnesses from testifying for fear of being belittled in the press.
PENALTIES AND COSTS
$10,000 plus costs (Publisher)

CASE
Attorney General (NSW) v Willesee [1980] 2 NSWLR 143
PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL
Television broadcast concerning the death of a prison warden which referred to the prior convictions of the prisoner charged with the murder while the trial was pending.
FALLS UNDER PROPOSAL 4? IF SO WHICH CATEGORY?
1
PENALTIES AND COSTS
$2,000 plus costs (Managing director of the company, producer, compere and person in control of the program)
$2,000 plus costs (Broadcaster or licensee of the TV channel)
$1,000 plus costs (Production company)

CASE
Registrar, Court of Appeal v Collins [1982] 1 NSWLR 682
PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL
The contemnor distributed pamphlets on the footpath outside the entrance to buildings in which criminal sittings of the Supreme and District Courts in Darlinghurst were then being held, to members of the public who included jurors and persons summoned for jury service in those sittings. The pamphlet warned potential jurors against accepting police evidence and invited them to disregard directions of trial judges.
FALLS UNDER PROPOSAL 4? IF SO WHICH CATEGORY?
Does not belong to any of the categories.
The conduct was contemptuous as a form of “contempt in the face of the Court” which was held to extend to conduct occurring outside the actual courtroom.
PENALTIES AND COSTS
Imprisonment for 2 months plus costs (Contemnor)

CASE
Attorney General (NSW) v Mayas Pty Ltd (NSWCA, No 174/83, 28 March 1984 unreported)
PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL
Article in a country newspaper, the Moree Champion, referring to past criminal conduct of two persons charged with armed robbery and assault.
FALLS UNDER PROPOSAL 4? IF SO WHICH CATEGORY?
1
PENALTIES AND COSTS
$5,000 plus one-half the costs (Publisher)

CASE
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Wran (1986) 7 NSWLR 616
PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL
Newspaper article in The Daily Telegraph reporting the statement of then Premier Neville Wran expressing his belief in the innocence of Justice Lionel Murphy in respect of a criminal charge.
FALLS UNDER PROPOSAL 4? IF SO WHICH CATEGORY?
3, 4
PENALTIES AND COSTS
$200,000 plus costs (Publisher)
$25,000 plus costs (Wran)

CASE
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1987) 7 NSWLR 588
PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL
Television broadcast in ABC's The National program screened on the eve of committal proceedings against Justice Lionel Murphy referring to the "Age tapes". The broadcast stated that "Justice Murphy had made improper overtures on behalf of a Sydney solicitor, Mr Morgan Ryan." Murphy J was facing charges of perverting the course of justice by attempting to influence the outcome of the criminal proceedings against Mr Ryan.
FALLS UNDER PROPOSAL 4? IF SO WHICH CATEGORY?
3
PENALTIES AND COSTS
$100,000 plus costs (Broadcaster)
$2,000 plus costs (Editor)

CASE
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1987) 8 NSWLR 732
PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL
Newspaper article in the Sun Herald containing the alleged criminal record of an accused, a file photograph of him ‘leaving court’ in 1977, and remarks attributed to a judge which were adverse to the accused (“the worst criminal of his type”).
FALLS UNDER PROPOSAL 4? IF SO WHICH CATEGORY?
1, 4, 5
PENALTIES AND COSTS
$5,000 plus costs (Publisher)
No penalty for editors and journalist but they were ordered to pay costs

CASE
Attorney General (NSW) v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (NSWCA, No 371/87, 21 April 1988, unreported)
PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL
Newspaper articles in The Sun which referred to the accused as a "prison escapee" before his arrest, during committal proceedings and during the trial for the murder of Anita Cobby.
FALLS UNDER PROPOSAL 4? IF SO WHICH CATEGORY?
1
PENALTIES AND COSTS
$20,000 plus costs (Publisher)

CASE
Attorney General (NSW) v Macquarie Publications Pty Ltd (1988) 40 A Crim R 405
PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL
Article in the Daily Liberal, a newspaper in the Dubbo District, containing the name, previous criminal record and photograph of an accused after committal but before trial. The article referred to the accused as a “dangerous criminal”.
FALLS UNDER PROPOSAL 4? IF SO WHICH CATEGORY?
1, 4, 5
PENALTIES AND COSTS
$10,000 plus costs (Publisher)

CASE
Attorney General (NSW) v Dean (1990) 20 NSWLR 650(Paul Mason case)
PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL
Statement of a police officer made in a press conference suggesting that the person charged with murder was guilty of the charges and had confessed to them.
FALLS UNDER PROPOSAL 4? IF SO WHICH CATEGORY?
2, 3
PENALTIES AND COSTS
No penalty but the police officer was ordered to pay costs

CASE
Attorney General (NSW) v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd (1990) 20 NSWLR 368 (liability); (1990) 5 BR 419 (penalty) (Paul Mason case)
PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL
Television broadcast on TCN9 Evening News in relation to three murder charges showing film footage of the accused with the police at the murder scenes. The broadcast included an interview with a police officer to the effect that the accused had confessed.The accused committed suicide before committal proceedings commenced.
FALLS UNDER PROPOSAL 4? IF SO WHICH CATEGORY?
2, 3, 5
PENALTIES AND COSTS
$75,000 plus costs (Broadcaster)

CASE
Attorney General (NSW) v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd (1990) 5 BR 396 (Paul Mason case)
PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL
Television broadcast on Channel 7 Evening News in relation to three murder charges showing film footage of the accused with the police at the murder scenes. The broadcast included an interview with a police officer to the effect that the accused had confessed. It also included an interview with the accused asking whether he had any messages for the family of two of the victims.
FALLS UNDER PROPOSAL 4? IF SO WHICH CATEGORY?
2, 3, 5
PENALTIES AND COSTS
$200,000 plus costs (Broadcaster)

CASE
Attorney General (NSW) v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (NSWCA, No 40136/90, 11 October 1990, unreported) (Paul Mason case)
PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL
Television broadcast on ABC News in relation to three murder charges showing film footage of the accused with the police at the murder scenes and reporting that a confession had been made.
FALLS UNDER PROPOSAL 4? IF SO WHICH CATEGORY?
2, 3, 5
PENALTIES AND COSTS
$120,000 plus costs (Broadcaster)

CASE
Attorney General (NSW) v United Telecasters Sydney Ltd (NSWCA, No 40139/90, 11 October 1990, unreported) (Paul Mason case)
PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL
Television broadcast on Ten Evening News in relation to three murder charges showing film footage of an accused with the police at the murder scenes. The broadcast included an interview with a police officer to the effect that the accused had confessed.
FALLS UNDER PROPOSAL 4? IF SO WHICH CATEGORY?
2, 3, 5
PENALTIES AND COSTS
$75,000 plus costs (Broadcaster)

CASE
Attorney General (NSW) v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (NSWCA, No 40141/90, 11 October 1990, unreported) (Paul Mason case)
PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL
Newspaper article published in the Daily Mirror and two articles in the Daily Telegraph from two different editions. The articles contained photographs of the accused, photographs of accused handcuffed by the police, the confession by the accused and other incriminating statements made to police.
FALLS UNDER PROPOSAL 4? IF SO WHICH CATEGORY?
2, 3, 5
PENALTIES AND COSTS
$200,000 plus costs (Publisher)

CASE
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v United Telecasters Sydney Ltd (1992) 7 BR 364
PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL
Television broadcast on arranged marriages containing prejudicial information about the accused during his trial for offences under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The accused was not identified in the TV program but it could be inferred that he was one of its subjects.
FALLS UNDER PROPOSAL 4? IF SO WHICH CATEGORY?
3
PENALTIES AND COSTS
$20,000 plus costs (Broadcaster)

CASE
Attorney General (NSW) v Radio 2UE Pty Ltd (NSWCA, No 40225/91 and 40226/91, 28 August 1992, unreported)
PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL
Two broadcasts on Radio 2UE containing statements about the arrest of a Mr Dias by police officers. The statements were to the effect that Mr Dias had wrongly accused the police officers of planting drugs on him as a result of which charges were laid against the police, that Mr Dias had committed perjury, and that the charges against some of the police officers were dismissed. There was a pending case against one of the police officers where Mr Dias was the main witness.
FALLS UNDER PROPOSAL 4? IF SO WHICH CATEGORY?
3
PENALTIES AND COSTS
$75,000 plus costs (Broadcaster)
$2,000 plus costs (Announcer)

CASE
Registrar, Court of Appeal v John Fairfax Group Pty Ltd (NSWCA, No 40478/92, 21 April 1993, unreported)
PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL
Newspaper article in the Sun Herald which attacked the credibility of a defence witness during a criminal trial for attempting to pervert the course of justice.
FALLS UNDER PROPOSAL 4? IF SO WHICH CATEGORY?
3, 4
PENALTIES AND COSTS
$75,000 plus costs (Publisher)
$1,000 plus costs (Journalist)

CASE
Attorney General (NSW) v Northern Star Ltd (NSWCA, No 40259/94, 14 October 1994, unreported)
PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL
Newspaper article in The Northern Star published during a trial for armed robbery and kidnapping which referred to the accused's prior conviction, the fact that he had previously escaped from custody in another case, and that there were extraordinary security measures at the trial.
FALLS UNDER PROPOSAL 4? IF SO WHICH CATEGORY?
1
PENALTIES AND COSTS
$20,000 plus costs (Publisher)

CASE
Attorney General (NSW) v Time Inc Magazine Co Pty Ltd (NSWCA, No 40331/94, 15 September 1994, 21 October 1994, unreported)
PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL
Article in a magazine, Who Weekly, which contained photographs of Ivan Milat, accused of the “backpacker murders”.
FALLS UNDER PROPOSAL 4? IF SO WHICH CATEGORY?
5
PENALTIES AND COSTS
Interlocutory injunction granted against Time Inc
$100,000 plus costs (Publisher)
$10,000 (Editor)

CASE
Registrar, Court of Appeal v John Fairfax Group Pty Ltd (NSWCA, No 40250/94, 23 February 1995, unreported)
PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL
Newspaper article in the Sun Herald disclosing that a person accused of conspiracy to rob an Armaguard van was recently convicted of armed robbery.
FALLS UNDER PROPOSAL 4? IF SO WHICH CATEGORY?
1
PENALTIES AND COSTS
No penalty
Publisher ordered to pay costs

CASE
Harkianakis v Skalkos (1997) 42 NSWLR 22 (liability); (NSWCA, No 40514/96, 15 October 1997, unreported) (penalty)
PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL
Newspaper article in the Greek Herald which accused the Archbishop of the Greek Orthodox Church, who was then a plaintiff in defamation proceedings, of having a hobby of pressing charges to claim the properties of his compatriots, of using the courts to ruin people, etc.
FALLS UNDER PROPOSAL 4? IF SO WHICH CATEGORY?
Does not belong to any of the categories. The court held that the article had a tendency to deter the claimant in his prosecution of the defamation proceedings and to deter others in similar situations – improper pressure on parties.
PENALTIES AND COSTS
$2,000 (Journalist and managing director of the proprietor)
$1,000 (Proprietor)
No order as to costs

CASE
Attorney General (NSW) v Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd (NSWCA, No 40236/96, 11 March 1998, unreported)
PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL
Radio broadcast made by a radio announcer, while a man was on trial for murder in Sydney, the announcer naming the accused and stating that the accused was "absolute scum" and was guilty of the murder with which he was charged.
FALLS UNDER PROPOSAL 4? IF SO WHICH CATEGORY?
3, 4
PENALTIES AND COSTS
$200,000 (Broadcaster)
$50,000 (Announcer)
The broadcaster and announcer were ordered to pay costs assessed at $60,000

(2) Unsuccessful prosecutions

CASE
The Prothonotary v Collins (1985) 2 NSWLR 549
PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL
The defendant distributed pamphlets in the Darlinghurst court complex which warned potential jurors about “police verbals” or evidence from police about oral confessions by persons accused of crimes. (Note: This case involved the same defendant and more or less the same pamphlets as in Registrar v Collins (1982) 1 NSWLR 682. While he was convicted in the 1982 case, he was acquitted in this case, in part because when the pamphlets were distributed this time around, none of the cases being tried at the court complex involved police evidence re confessions.)
FALLS UNDER PROPOSAL 4? IF SO WHICH CATEGORY?
Does not belong to any of the categories.

CASE
Registrar, Court of Appeal v Willessee (1985) 3 NSWLR 650
PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL
TV program on Channel 9 which contained material about an accused who was being tried for larceny, including statements the he was a “minder” who sorted out trouble with his fists and sometimes with a gun, that he has killed a man, and that he has no credibility. Aired the night before the jury were to consider their verdict.
FALLS UNDER PROPOSAL 4? IF SO WHICH CATEGORY?
1, 4

CASE
Attorney General (NSW) v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1985) 6 NSWLR 695
PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL
Newspaper article in National Times that summons were issued against a Police Detective, Rogerson, for attempted bribery of another detective Michael Drury; that in June 1984 Drury was shot and made a dying deposition in which he claimed that Rogerson attempted to bribe him; that Darlinghurst police station where Rogerson was stationed was notorious for regular pay-offs by prostitutes, rapes and bashings in the station, and a relationship between a drug trafficker and some detectives. The article gave details of the shooting by Rogerson of heroin dealer Warren Lafranchi in 1981, including evidence excluded from the inquest into Lafranchi’s death. It also mentioned a complaint filed with the Ombudsman by an ex-prisoner, Pouch, that Rogerson had attempted to murder him.
FALLS UNDER PROPOSAL 4? IF SO WHICH CATEGORY?
1, 4

CASE
The Council of the Shire of Warringah v The Manly Daily Pty; The Council of the Shire of Warringah v Sutton (NSWCA, No 163/85, 27 August 1985, unreported)
PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL
Councillor Sutton opposed organisational restructuring of Warringah Shire Council and instituted proceedings in the Supreme Court challenging the validity of the resolutions effecting the restructure. An article was published in The Manly Daily in which Mrs Sutton accused the Council of diversionary tactics to prevent the quick resolution of the Supreme Court case.
FALLS UNDER PROPOSAL 4? IF SO WHICH CATEGORY?
None of the categories apply. It was claimed (unsuccessfully) that the publications held the Council up to public obloquy and derision, thereby tending to inhibit it from pursuing its defence to the proceedings. In other words, it was alleged that the publication had a tendency to impose improper pressure on a party to proceedings.

CASE
Civil Aviation Authority v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1995) 39 NSWLR 540
PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL
Radio broadcast on ABC’s Radio National discussing the events surrounding a plane crash and including interviews with potential witnesses to the coronial inquest. In the program’s conclusion, the report stated that “there is no doubt that [the coroner] will lay most of the blame on a company that operated outside the law and on an air safety regulator which knew about the breaches and didn’t stop them.”
FALLS UNDER PROPOSAL 4? IF SO WHICH CATEGORY?
None of the categories apply. The statements were claimed to have asserted the guilt of the parties involved prior to the commencement of the coronial proceedings. In other words they went to the findings which the coroner might ultimately make – prejudging the issues before the coroner.

CASE
Attorney General (NSW) v Radio 2UE Pty Ltd and Jones (NSWCA, No 40762/91, 28 August 1992, unreported)
PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL
Radio broadcast where the presenter said that a key witness in a murder trial admitted the he was an accomplished liar, had been a professional poker machine thief for 10 years, a heroin smuggler.
FALLS UNDER PROPOSAL 4? IF SO WHICH CATEGORY?
1, 4

CASE
Attorney General (NSW) v John Fairfax Publications Pty Limited [1999] NSWSC 318
PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL
The Sydney Morning Herald published an article and photograph about a man facing charges concerning the supply of heroin. He was described as a drug boss and a top heroin distributor, a “Mr Big”, was called a drug csar, headed a list of criminals the Police Commissioner wanted banned from the casino, etc.
FALLS UNDER PROPOSAL 4? IF SO WHICH CATEGORY?
1, 3, 4, 5

VICTORIA

(1) Successful prosecutions

CASE
R v David Syme and Co Ltd [1982] VR 173
PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL
Newspaper article in The Age that referred to two accuseds on trial for drug offences, without naming them, but with a description detailed enough to be recognisable to jury. The article inferred that the accuseds had ordered the murder of a key witness and suggested they were guilty of the drug offences.
FALLS UNDER PROPOSAL 4? IF SO WHICH CATEGORY?
1, 3
PENALTIES AND COSTS
$75 000 plus costs (Publisher)
$5 000 plus costs (Editor)
No penalty was ordered against the journalist but he was ordered to pay costs.

CASE
Hinch v Attorney General (Vic) [1987] VR 721
PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL
Radio broadcasts revealed an accused’s previous convictions and acquittals and suggested he had committed other crimes for which he had never been charged. A notice of motion was issued after two such broadcasts and a second notice of motion was issued when a further offending broadcast was made.
FALLS UNDER PROPOSAL 4? IF SO WHICH CATEGORY?
1
PENALTIES AND COSTS
$15 000 for the first motion, $25,000 for the second motion (Broadcaster)
$15,000 and 28 days imprisonment (Announcer)

CASE
R v Day & Thomson [1985] VR 261
PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL
Newspaper article in The Truth stating that information excluded on a voir dire about a rape trial had been “tossed out” as the suspect had been held too long.
FALLS UNDER PROPOSAL 4? IF SO WHICH CATEGORY?
3 – Inference that the suppressed material implicated the accused.
PENALTIES AND COSTS
$7000 plus costs (Publisher)
$3000 plus costs (Editor)

CASE
Attorney General (Vic) v Gordon, Robert Edward Cronin & The Herald & Weekly Times Ltd (VSC, No CC89/85, 12 July 1985, unreported)
PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL
Newspaper article in The Sun stating an accused on trial for theft had previously been acquitted of murder and linked him to “underworld” figures.
FALLS UNDER PROPOSAL 4? IF SO WHICH CATEGORY?
1
PENALTIES AND COSTS
$8000 plus costs (Proprietor)
No penalty ordered against the editors.

CASE
AG (Vic) v Austarama Television Pty Ltd (VSC, No 93/86, 23 December 1986, unreported) (Nicholson J)
NB Case involved two publications. Contempt found in respect of first publication; no contempt found in respect of second (See below).
PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL
First publication: “News telecast” on Channel 10 that referred to the accused as an “underworld hitman”, who was facing charges for murder and conspiracy to murder.
FALLS UNDER PROPOSAL 4? IF SO WHICH CATEGORY?
3

CASE
R v Truth Newspaper (VSC, No 4571/93, 16 December 1993, unreported)
PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL
Newspaper article in The Truth about the effect of a trial on a policeman on trial for corruption. The trial lasted over three years and cost over $33 million.
FALLS UNDER PROPOSAL 4? IF SO WHICH CATEGORY?
4 – Article engendered sympathy for the policeman by talking about the huge cost of the trial, as well as the effect of the trial on his marriage, health and parents’ health.
PENALTIES AND COSTS
$15,000 plus costs (Proprietor)
$5,000 each plus costs (Editors-2)
$3,000 plus costs (Journalist)
No penalty against the Printer but ordered to pay costs.

CASE
R v Herald & Weekly Times Ltd (VSC, No 6570/95, 15 April 1996, unreported)
PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL
Two newspaper articles in the Herald Sun stating an accused on trial for murder was “a notorious Pentridge prisoner … infamous within criminal circles …” who had held a hostage during a prison siege, made bomb threats and was on trial for two separate murders (the latter fact prohibited from publication by court order).
FALLS UNDER PROPOSAL 4? IF SO WHICH CATEGORY?
1
PENALTIES AND COSTS
$15000 plus costs (Publisher)
$1000 plus costs (Editor)

CASE
R v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (VSC, No 6129/97, 22 December 1997, unreported) (liability); (VSC, No 6129/97, 18 February 1998, unreported) (penalty)
PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL
Newspaper article in The Australian stating an accused on trial for conspiracy to defraud Coles was scapegoating by blaming his predecessor for initiating the fraud. It also stated that others had described the accused’s predecessor as scrupulously honest and hardworking.
FALLS UNDER PROPOSAL 4? IF SO WHICH CATEGORY?
4 – Suggestion that the accused was a liar and a coward; therefore presented an unfavourable view of him.
PENALTIES AND COSTS
$75,000 plus costs (Proprietor)
$10,000 plus costs (Journalist)
Costs only (Printer and Publisher)

CASE
R (On Application of AG for State of Vic) v Spectator Staff Pty Ltd [1999] VSC 107
PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL
Newspaper article in the Hamilton Spectator that published submissions made on a voir dire for an application to permanently stay the trial because of delay. The submissions referred to information not before the jury. Three charges of indecent assault were stayed however a rape charge continued.
FALLS UNDER PROPOSAL 4? IF SO WHICH CATEGORY?
1 Charges that had been stayed suggest prior criminal activity
3 “Judicial imprimatur” to the rape charge due to three charges being stayed, one continued.
4 Possibility the credit of the complainant could be questioned (complainant’s inability to make a positive ID was published).
PENALTIES AND COSTS
$2000 each plus costs (Proprietors – 5)
$1000 plus costs (Managing Director)
$1000 plus costs (Editor)
Conviction on the journalist but no fine or costs order.

CASE
R (On Application of the AG for the State of Vic) v Herald & Weekly Times Ltd (VSC, No 4398-9/99, 12 November 1999, unreported) (liability)
R v Herald & Weekly Times (No 2) [2000] VSC 35 (penalty)
PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL
Two newspaper articles published in the Herald Sun relating to a review of a custodial supervision order over the accused who had pleaded insanity to a murder. The decision would be based on issues of safety and the contemptuous articles included: “Don’t let him out”; interview with the victim’s father; suggestion that there had been other victims; and one detective’s view that D was still a danger to society.
NB potential influence was on a judge sitting alone.
FALLS UNDER PROPOSAL 4? IF SO WHICH CATEGORY?
4
PENALTIES AND COSTS
$10,000 plus costs (Proprietor in each case)
$2000 plus costs (Editor in each case)

(2) Unsuccessful prosecutions

CASE
AG (Vic) v Austarama Television Pty Ltd (VSC, No 93/86, 23 December 1986, unreported)
NB Case involved two publications. Contempt found in respect of first publication (see above); no contempt found in respect of second.
PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL
Second publication (the “interview telecast”): Live telecast of an interview on Good Morning Australia with a clergyman about bikie groups (a topic unrelated to the accused’s trial). The interviewee suggested the accused would kill on request; a suggestion that the accused was guilty of the offence for which he was charged. No contempt found because the interviewee’s assertion was non-responsive and a “bolt from the blue”, and the broadcaster had no opportunity to delete the contemptuous statement as it was a live interview.
FALLS UNDER PROPOSAL 4? IF SO WHICH CATEGORY?
3

CASE
R v Tennison & The Herald & Weekly Times Ltd v DPP (Vic) (VSC, No 1956/87, Nathan J, 12 November 1987, unreported)
PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL
Newspaper article in the Herald Sun disclosed the accused’s previous convictions. No contempt found because person referred to in the contemptuous article was only obliquely identifiable as the accused.
FALLS UNDER PROPOSAL 4? IF SO WHICH CATEGORY?
1

WESTERN AUSTRALIA

CASE
R v Barber (WA, Supreme Court, No 2330/90, 22 October 1990, unreported)
PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL
Newspaper article in the Albany Advertiser disclosing evidence of a confession heard on a voir dire that was ruled admissible and needed to be reheard in front of the jury at a later date.
FALLS UNDER PROPOSAL 4? IF SO WHICH CATEGORY?
2
COSTS
$250 (Journalist)
$500 (Editor)
$1000 (Proprietor and publisher)

CASE
R v Pearce [1992] 7 WAR 395
PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL
Television interview with the employer of the accused who said that he did not believe she had done anything wrong.
FALLS UNDER PROPOSAL 4? IF SO WHICH CATEGORY?
3
COSTS
No penalty but costs ordered against the respondants

CASE
R & ABC v Ex Parte DPP for WA (WA, Supreme Court, No 1256/94, 26 July 1994, unreported)
PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL
The accused was described in The 7.30 Report as the leader of organised crime (Mafia) and it was said that he was behind bars and had financed the drug activities in relation to which he was charged at the time of the publication.
FALLS UNDER PROPOSAL 4? IF SO WHICH CATEGORY?
1, 3
COSTS
$5000 (Broadcaster)

CASE
R v Nationwide News Pty Ltd & Anor; Ex parte DPP for WA (WA, Supreme Court, No 1763/95, 10 July 1996, unreported)
PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL
Newspaper article in The Australian referring to the recent gaoling of the accused (who was on trial for fraud) and insinuating that he was of bad character in his dealings in relation to horseracing.
FALLS UNDER PROPOSAL 4? IF SO WHICH CATEGORY?
1, 4
COSTS
$10 000 (Proprietor)

CASE
R v West Australian Newspapers Ltd & Others; Ex parte DPP for WA (WA, Supreme Court, No 1758/95, 10 July 1996, unreported)
PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL
Newspaper article in The West Australian referring to the accused as a “bad boy” and publishing his previous convictions and a photograph of him.
FALLS UNDER PROPOSAL 4? IF SO WHICH CATEGORY?
1, 4, 5
COSTS
$25 000 plus costs (Proprietor)
$5 000 plus costs (Editor)
No penalty against the journalist but ordered to pay costs

CASE
R v Nationwide News Pty Ltd; DPP (Cth) CLS 1997 WASC 380
PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL
Newspaper article in The Australian impugned the accused’s honesty (the accused was Alan Bond, facing charges involving dishonesty). The article suggested that Bond was involved in the dishonest concealment of millions of dollars worth of art works.
FALLS UNDER PROPOSAL 4? IF SO WHICH CATEGORY?
3, 4
COSTS
$10,000 plus costs (Publisher)

CASE
R v Saxon [1984] WAR 283
PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL
Newspaper article in The Western Mail stating that the accused, on trial for perjury, owed money to various creditors and that she had previously been acquitted on one charge of false pretences. A photograph was also published.
FALLS UNDER PROPOSAL 4? IF SO WHICH CATEGORY?
1, 4, 5
COSTS
$2000 plus costs (Publisher)
$250 plus costs (Journalist)
$250 plus costs (Editor)

CASE
R v Thompson [1989] WAR 219
PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL
TV broadcast on Channel 7 disclosed that the accused, on trial for murder, had previous convictions for rape.
FALLS UNDER PROPOSAL 4? IF SO WHICH CATEGORY?
1
COSTS
$7500 (Publisher)
$3000 (Editor )
$1000 (Journalist)

CASE
DPP for WA v Rural Press Regional Media (WA) Pty Ltd CLS 1988 WASC 573
PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL
Newspaper article in the Bunbury Mail disclosing that the accused, charged with sexual offences, had previously been convicted of sexual offences.
FALLS UNDER PROPOSAL 4? IF SO WHICH CATEGORY?
1
COSTS
$1 000 plus costs (Proprietor)

CASE
R v 61X Southern Cross Radio Pty Ltd; Ex parte DPP (WA) [1999] WASCA 254
PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL
Radio broadcast on 6IX that referred to details of a video recorded interview with the accused that had been ruled inadmissible on voir dire. The accused was charged with attempting to murder her father; the video contained confessional material regarding the offence.
FALLS UNDER PROPOSAL 4? IF SO WHICH CATEGORY?
2
COSTS
$2500 plus costs (Radio Station)

CASE
Resolute Ltd v Warnes [2000] WASC 35
PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL
Defamatory material contained on a website
FALLS UNDER PROPOSAL 4? IF SO WHICH CATEGORY?
Does not belong to any category. Contempt involved improper pressure on a party.
COSTS
Costs

SOUTH AUSTRALIA

CASE
Registrar of the Supreme Court of SA v The Advertiser Ltd (SA, Supreme Court, No 2418/95, 17 May 1996, unreported)
PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL
Newspaper article in The Advertiser reporting the trial of the accused, on trial for murder, generally inciting sympathy for victim and antipathy for accused; commenting on credibility of a witness.
FALLS UNDER PROPOSAL 4? IF SO WHICH CATEGORY?
4
PENALTIES AND COSTS
$10 000 plus costs (Publisher)

CASE
Registrar of the Supreme Court v Channel 9 South Australia P/L [2001] SASC 3
PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL
Channel 9 News broadcast showing incriminating photos allegedly taken by the accused (on trial for sex offences) and suggesting he was guilty of other, more serious, offending behaviour than that charged with. Footage of the accused outside court aimed at inciting antipathy for accused.
FALLS UNDER PROPOSAL 4? IF SO WHICH CATEGORY?
1, 3, 4, 5
PENALTIES AND COSTS
Channel 9 (with a guilty plea) – $20 000
If plea had been not guilty penalty would have been $25 000

QUEENSLAND

CASE
R v Sun Newspapers Pty Ltd (1992) 58 A Crim R 281
PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL
Newspaper article in the Sunday Sun dealing with the completed trial of Lewis, a former Police Commissioner convicted on charges of corruption. The article revealed information ruled inadmissible in another, factually-linked trial (details of Lewis’s diary which pointed to Lewis doing deals with the accused in the second trial).
FALLS UNDER PROPOSAL 4? IF SO WHICH CATEGORY?
1, 3