Advertisement
Goodbye job applications, hello dream career
Seize control of your career and design the future you deserve with LW career

George Pell media contempt ruling to be handed down soon

The Victorian Supreme Court is weighing up whether media companies and journalists have a contempt case to answer to due to their initial reports on Cardinal George Pell’s now-overturned convictions on historic child sexual abuse charges. 

user iconNaomi Neilson 20 November 2020 Big Law
George Pell media contempt ruling to be handed down soon
expand image

Victorian Supreme Court’s Justice John Dixon will contemplate whether journalists and their companies will have to answer to the courts for their reporting on Cardinal Pell’s convictions. Justice Dixon is due to hand down his decision sometime in the next few days after hearing submissions alleging that they breached a suppression order. 

The media companies are defending the contempt charges with claims that the reports on Mr Pell – published just days after he was found guilty in now-overturned charges – did not name him but instead referred to a “high-profile person” who had been charged and found guilty of “serious charges” and was awaiting another trial. 

Of the 100 contempt charges against 12 media companies and 18 journalists, 13 have been withdrawn by prosecutors and lawyers for media have submitted that their clients have no case to answer on the remaining charges and should be struck out. 

The County Court imposed the suppression orders over Cardinal Pell’s case to ensure jurors in the second trial did not know he had been found guilty in the first. The second trial was abandoned by prosecutors early last year, allowing the media to name him. 

Prosecutors are alleging that the media outlets breached conditions of the suppression order and encouraged their audience to search online for more information – meaning Cardinal Pell’s name and charges. They are also arguing that individual journalists can be held liable as they prepared reports with the intention of them being made public. 

Lawyers for the media companies have argued that prosecutors failed to prove a case on the issue of journalists being held individually liable and have failed to prove reports encouraged their audiences to search online for additional information. They said there was no evidence of the latter outside of solicitors for the Office of Public Prosecutions. 

Matt Collins QC told the court it was “fanciful speculation” to suggest there were people who heard, read or saw the reports then conducted a successful search online.

Naomi Neilson

Naomi Neilson

Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly. 

You can email Naomi at: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Tags
You need to be a member to post comments. Become a member for free today!