Contempt by publication
(NSW Law Reform Commission)
RECOMMENDATION 1 (page 44)
Liability for sub judice contempt should be retained.
RECOMMENDATION 2 (page 73)
The publication of matter should constitute a contempt if it
creates a substantial risk, according to the circumstances at the time of
publishing the matter, that:
- members, or potential members, of a jury, or a
witness or witnesses, or potential witness or witnesses, in legal
proceedings will:
- become aware of the matter; and
- recall the content of the matter at
the relevant time; and
- by virtue of those facts, the fairness of the
proceedings will be prejudiced.
RECOMMENDATION 3 (page 89)
Section 129(5)(b) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) should
be amended to allow for a trial judge’s decision to dismiss, or not to dismiss,
a jury in a criminal trial following the publication of matter, and the reasons
given for that decision, to be admissible in the related contempt proceedings,
subject to s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). The mere fact that the
trial judge cannot be cross-examined should not be considered in itself to
cause unfair prejudice to a party for the purpose of s 135. Evidence of the decision,
and the reasons for the decision, should be admissible as relevant to the issue
of liability for sub judice contempt, but should not be determinative of the question
of liability.
RECOMMENDATION 4 (page 93)
Legislation should provide that the risk of prejudice presented
by the publication of matter is not reduced by reason only that matter containing
similar contents has been published on a previous occasion.
RECOMMENDATION 5 (page 112)
Legislation should provide that it is a defence to a charge
of sub judice contempt, proved on the balance of probabilities, that the person
or organisation charged with contempt, as well as any person for whose conduct
in the matter it is responsible:
(a) did not know a fact that caused the publication to
breach the sub judice rule;
and
(b) before the publication was made, either
(i) took reasonable steps to ascertain
any fact that would cause the publication to
breach the sub judice rule; or
(ii) relied reasonably on one or more other
person to take such steps and to prevent publication of any such fact was
ascertained.
RECOMMENDATION 6 (page 120)
Legislation should provide that it is a defence to a charge
of sub judice contempt if the accused can show, on the balance of
probabilities:
(a) that the offending matter was published pursuant
to an agreement or arrangement whereby the content of matter to be
published by the accused was to be determined by a person or persons
other than the accused or any employee or agent of the accused; and
(b) that either:
(i) at the time of the publication,
having made such inquiries as were
reasonable in the circumstances,
neither the accused or any servant or agent of the accused
knew or had any reason to suspect that the material to be
published would comprise or include the offending matter or any like
matter; or
(ii) prior to the publication, having become
aware, or having reason to suspect, that the material
to be published would or might comprise or include the
offending matter or any like matter, the accused, or a servant or
agent of the accused, took reasonable steps to endeavour to prevent such
matter from being published.
RECOMMENDATION 7 (page 122)
Legislation should provide for costs penalties if a defendant
does not disclose evidence of the availability of a defence under Recommendation
7 to the prosecutor within 14 days of being served with summons commencing
contempt proceedings.
RECOMMENDATION 8 (page 127)
Legislation should make it clear that mere intent to
interfere with the administration of
judice does not constitute sub judice contempt, in the
absence of a publication that creates a substantial risk of prejudice to the
administration of justice.
RECOMMENDATION 9 (page 137)
The sub judice rule should continue to apply to civil
proceedings in the terms recommended in Recommendation 2.
RECOMMENDATION 10 (page 149)
Legislation should provide that, having regard to the circumstances
of publication, a person or organisation that publishes material that gives rise
to a substantial risk that a person of reasonable fortitude in the position of
a party to civil or criminal proceedings will make a different decision in
relation to those proceedings, for the reason that it vilifies the person in
their character of a party to the proceedings, is liable for contempt.
"Party" in this context includes a prospective
party, being a person who reasonably believes that they may become a party to
the proceedings, or who is or appears to be in a position to institute the
proceedings, whether or not they are minded to do so.
"Decision" in this context means a decision to
institute, not to institute, to discontinue, to participate, or to participate
further or to take a particular step in proceedings.
"Vilifies" in this context means inciting hatred
towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of the party through unfair
comment and/or material misrepresentations of fact.
The "defences" available in other cases of sub
judice contempt should be available in this case.
RECOMMENDATION 11 (page 154)
Legislation should make it clear that liability for sub
judice contempt cannot be founded simply on the basis that a publication
prejudges issues at stake in proceedings.
RECOMMENDATION 12 (page 158)
Subject to one exception relating to influence on prospective
parties, the sub judice rule should not apply to a publication unless the
proceedings to which it relates are pending at the time of the publication.
RECOMMENDATION 13 (page 164)
Legislation should provide that, for purposes of the sub judice
rule, criminal proceedings should become pending, and the restrictions on
publicity designed to prevent influence on juries, witnesses or parties should
apply, as from the occurrence of any of these initial steps of the proceedings:
(a) the arrest of the accused;
(b) the laying of the charge;
(c) the issue of a court attendance notice and its
filing in the registry of the relevant court; or
(d) the filing of an ex officio indictment.
RECOMMENDATION 14 (page 165)
Legislation should provide that: (a) where the accused is
not in New South Wales but is in another Australian jurisdiction, criminal
proceedings become pending from the arrest of the accused in the other
jurisdiction; and (b) where the accused is overseas, the criminal proceedings
become pending from the making of the order for the extradition of the accused.
RECOMMENDATION 15 (page 170)
Legislation should provide that in its application to
publications which create a substantial risk of prejudice by virtue of influence
to witnesses in civil or coronial proceedings, the sub judice rule should apply
as from the issue of a writ or summons.
In its application to publications which create a
substantial risk of prejudice by virtue of influence on jurors, the sub judice
rule should apply as from the time when it is known that a jury will be used in
the civil or coronial proceedings.
In its application to publications which create a
substantial risk of prejudice by virtue of influence on parties, the sub judice
rule should apply as from the issue of a writ or summons.
RECOMMENDATION 16 (page 171)
Legislation should provide that, in its application to
publications which create a substantial risk of influence on prospective
parties to criminal or civil proceedings, the sub judice rule may apply even
though no proceedings have commenced.
RECOMMENDATION 17 (page 180)
Legislation should provide that for purposes of determining
whether there has been contempt of court on the ground of influence on jurors or
potential jurors, a criminal proceeding remains “pending” and sub judice
restrictions remain operative until:
(a) the verdict of the jury in the proceedings is
handed down, or
(b) the making of an order, or any other event, having
the effect of the offence or offences charged will not be tried before a
jury, or not at all.
For purposes of determining whether there has been contempt
of court because of influence on parties, witnesses or potential witnesses, a
criminal proceeding remains "pending" and sub judice restrictions remain
operative until the conclusion of appeal proceedings or the expiry of any
period of appeal or further appeal.
Where a re-trial before a jury is ordered following a
successful appeal against a conviction, the sub judice rule as it applies to
all types of publications (including those that create risks of influence on a
jurors, potential jurors, witnesses, potential witnesses and/or parties) begins
to operate again from the time the order for a re-trial is made.
RECOMMENDATION 18 (page 181)
Legislation should provide that publications relating to
civil and coronial proceedings cease to be subject to the sub judice rule when
the proceedings are disposed of by judgment at first instance, settled or
discontinued. The rule should become operative again only when and from the
time a re-trial, or another inquest or inquiry in the case of coronial
proceedings, is ordered.
RECOMMENDATION 19 (page 182)
Legislation should provide that the same time limits for the
operation of sub judice restrictions apply whether or not there was an actual intention
to interfere with the administration of justice.
RECOMMENDATION 20 (page 202)
Legislation should provide that a person charged with sub
judice contempt on account of responsibility for the publication of material
should not be found guilty if:
(a) the material relates to a matter of public
interest; and
(b) the public benefit from the publication of the material,
in the circumstances in which it was published, and from the maintenance
of freedom to publish such material, outweighs the harm caused to the administration
of justice by virtue of the risk of influence on one or more jurors,
potential jurors, witnesses, potential witnesses and/or litigants created
by the publication.
RECOMMENDATION 21 (page 209)
Legislation should provide that a person charged with sub
judice contempt on account of responsibility for the publication of material should
not be found guilty if the publication the subject of the charge was reasonably
necessary or desirable to facilitate the arrest of a person, to protect the
safety of a person or of the public, or to facilitate investigations into an
alleged criminal offence.
RECOMMENDATION 22 (page 239)
A new provision should be introduced into the Evidence
Act 1995 (NSW) which provides that any court in any proceedings, has the power
to suppress the publication of reports of any part of the proceedings
(including documentary material), where this is necessary for the
administration of justice, either generally, or in relation to specific proceedings
(including proceedings in which the order is made). The power should apply in
both civil and criminal proceedings and should extend to suppression of publication
of evidence and oral submissions, as well as material that would lead to the
identification of parties and witnesses involved in proceedings before the
court. The new section should not replace the common law, and should operate
alongside existing statutory provisions that restrict publication unless a
successful application has been made rendering such a provision inapplicable in
the circumstances. However, section 119 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986
(NSW), together with any other provisions contained in other statutes which
give courts discretion if grounds are affirmatively made out to impose
suppression orders, should be repealed.
A section should be introduced into the Crimes Act 1900
(NSW) making breach of an order a criminal offence. The offence created by this
section should be one of strict liability.
The Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) should also expressly
provide that a person with a sufficient interest in the matter should be
eligible to apply to the court for the making, variation or revocation of a
suppression order. The applicant for a suppression order, together with the media
and anyone else regarded by the court as having a sufficient interest may be
heard on the application. The same categories of persons should also be able to
appeal in relation to a suppression order. Such a person, if heard previously
on the original application, should be entitled to be heard on the appeal. Any
other person with a sufficient interest may seek leave to be heard. An appeal
against a decision should be heard by a single judge of the Supreme Court,
except where a suppression order was made in the Supreme Court, in which case
an appeal should be heard by the Court of Appeal.
The court should also be empowered to make an interim
suppression order, having a maximum duration of seven days, before proceeding
to a final determination. The court should have the power to grant subsequent
interim suppression orders.
RECOMMENDATION 23 (page 273)
Legislation should provide that, subject to (a) any statute,
(b) any order of the court prohibiting or restricting access to the relevant
document or prohibiting or postponing reporting of the proceedings, or of the
relevant part of the proceedings, and (c) any objection by a party or a person
having a sufficient interest, the public should have a right of access to any
document in one or more of the following categories:
(1) pleadings to the extent their content is relied on
in open proceedings and referred to as forming the basis of the case argued
by a party;
(2) judgments and orders;
(3) documents that record what was said or done in
open court;
(4) documents that were admitted into evidence in proceedings
other than bail and committal proceedings and coronial inquiries;
(5) written submissions, to the extent their content
is relied on in open proceedings and referred to as forming the basis of the case
argued by a party; and
(6) documents recording the offences with which a
person has been charged in open court.
Where an objection is made, the court must prohibit or limit
access only if the person objecting establishes that a grant of access would be
contrary to the due administration of justice.
In relation to all other categories of document, applications
for access to a document must be made to the court in which the proceedings are
taking place. The applicant must establish grounds for a grant of access.
The word "document" should be defined to mean any
record of information including:
(a) anything on which there is writing;
(b) anything on which there are marks, figures,
symbols or perforations having a meaning for persons qualified to
interpret them;
(c) anything from which sounds, images or writings can
be reproduced with or without the aid of anything else; or
(d) a map, plan, drawing or photograph.
RECOMMENDATION 24 (page 274)
The court in which the proceedings are taking place should
have the power to prohibit or impose conditions on access to, or reporting of,
a document referred to in Recommendation 23, including a condition restricting
the purpose for which the document is to be used.
RECOMMENDATION 25 (page 275)
Legislation should provide that, subject to any rule of
common law or statute or any order of the court prohibiting or postponing
reporting of the proceedings, or of the relevant part of the proceedings, the
public should have the right to publish the contents of, or a fair and accurate
summary of the contents of, a document referred to in Recommendation 23.
RECOMMENDATION 26 (page 293)
Legislation should provide that a private person may
commence proceedings for the punishment of contempt.
This is subject to two provisos.
First, the person must, prior to the commencement of such
action, notify the Attorney General and the parties to the proceeding (if any)
allegedly involved.
Second, the Attorney General (or the Solicitor General or
Crown Advocate acting under a delegation from the Attorney General) and the Director
of Public Prosecutions shall have the discretion to take over the matter and:
(a) carry on the proceeding,
(b) cause the termination of the proceeding,
(c) carry on, on behalf of the prosecution or as respondent,
an appeal in any court in respect of the contempt,
(d) cause the termination of an appeal in any court in
respect of a contempt,
(e) institute and conduct, on behalf of the prosecution,
an appeal in any court in respect of the contempt, and
(f) conduct, as respondent, an appeal in any court in
respect of the contempt.
RECOMMENDATION 27 (page 309)
The hearing and decision of an appeal against a conviction
and/or sentence for criminal contempt, and of a review of a question of law
submitted by the Attorney General, should be assigned to the Court of Criminal
Appeal.
RECOMMENDATION 28 (page 321)
Legislation should provide an upper limit for fines that may
be imposed on persons convicted of criminal contempt. The maximum amount to be
set in legislation should be substantially more than $200,000, the highest
amount imposed so far in New South Wales in sub judice cases, to enable courts to
deal with the worst class of criminal contempt cases. The legislation need not distinguish
between the maximum fines that may be imposed on corporate offenders on the one
hand, and individuals on the other.
RECOMMENDATION 29 (page 328)
Legislation should provide that the upper limit for a
custodial sentence that may be imposed on a person convicted of criminal
contempt should be 5 years.
RECOMMENDATION 30 (page 333)
Legislation should expressly provide that the various
methods of and alternatives to serving custodial sentence, such as community
service orders, good behaviour bonds, dismissal of charges and conditional
discharge of the offender, deferral of sentencing, suspended sentences,
periodic detention orders, home detention orders and parole, are available for
the sentencing courts to use in criminal contempt proceedings.
RECOMMENDATION 31 (page 337)
The Attorney General should create and maintain a registry
of court outcomes of criminal contempt proceedings. The information in the
registry should be used only for sentencing purposes.
RECOMMENDATION 32 (page 342)
Legislation should provide that a private individual who
intends to apply for an injunction to stop an apprehended criminal contempt shall,
prior to such application, notify the Attorney General and the parties to the
proceedings (if any) allegedly involved.
RECOMMENDATION 33 (page 343)
Legislation should provide that the Director of Public
Prosecutions may apply for an injunction to restrain the publication of
material relating to criminal proceedings which would be in breach of the sub
judice principle or which would be a repetition of such breach.
RECOMMENDATION 34 (page 363)
The Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW) should be
amended to enable the Supreme Court to make an order for costs against a publisher
of material, in contempt of any court at which a criminal trial is held before
a jury, if the publication causes the discontinuance of the trial.
RECOMMENDATION 35 (page 379)
The amending legislation should substantially be in the form
set out in the Costs in Criminal Cases Amendment Bill 1997 (NSW) but
with the following modifications:
The application of the legislation should not be restricted
to media organisations.
An order for compensation should only be made where there
has been a conviction for contempt.
An order for compensation should only be made where the
contemptuous publication was either the sole or a substantial cause of the
trial being discontinued.
Reference in the Costs in Criminal Cases Amendment Bill
1997 to "printed publication" and "radio, television or
other electronic broadcast" should be omitted. "Publication" for
the purposes of the legislation should be defined to mean a "publication
in respect of which a conviction for contempt has been entered".
The legislation should provide that the Court, in determining
the amount of any fine to be imposed and the amount of a costs order, should take
account of the total sum to be paid by the contemnor.
The Court should have a discretion to order an amount which
is "just and equitable in all the circumstances", providing that the
amount ordered does not exceed the actual wasted costs. The legislation should
provide that the matters to which the court should have regard in the exercise
of this discretion should include:
(a) the financial resources of the contemnor; and
(b) the degree of culpability of the contemnor.
The costs in respect of which an order may be made should
exclude the cost to the State of the remuneration of judicial and other court
staff and any other ongoing State expenses not directly referable to the
aborted trial.
The "legal costs" of the parties and the provision
of "legal services" to the accused should include disbursements
directly related to the aborted trial.
Where the Attorney General attaches or tenders a certificate
setting out the costs that relate to the discontinued proceedings, the party
against whom a costs order is to be made should be able to challenge the
accuracy of the contents of the certificate. However, the certificate should
amount to prima facie evidence of the costs, in the absence of contrary
evidence produced by the contemnor.
The Attorney General’s certificate of costs should include
the costs claimed by the accused affected by the discontinued trial.
An order for costs which is less than the amount claimed in
the Attorney General’s certificate should, nonetheless, include the full amount
of the accused’s costs.
RECOMMENDATION 36 (page 391)
A media information officer should be appointed in New South
Wales with the specific function of liaising between the media and the Supreme
Court (including the Court of Appeal), the Court of Criminal Appeal, the Land
and Environment Court, the Children’s Court, the District and Local Courts, the
Coroner’s Court, the Industrial Relation Commission, and the Dust Diseases
Tribunal.
RECOMMENDATION 37 (page 391)
A Courts Media Committee should be established in New South
Wales, comprising representatives of both the media and the courts, based on
the courts media committee in Victoria.
RECOMMENDATION 38 (page 391)
There should be a protocol to the effect that, when a court
makes a suppression order, the terms of that order are to be posted on the
court’s web page within a specified period of time.
RECOMMENDATION 39 (page 391)
The registry of the court in which a suppression order is
made should make available to the public the terms of the order.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents