ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF Contempt of court-Newspaper-Publication-Charges pending-Declaration by H. C. OF
accused-Allegations of police violence-Statements by accused-Admissibility 1954-1955. at trial-Onus of proof.
Contempt of court is a criminal offence at common law, and, like all other criminal offences, it must, whether it be made the subject of indictment or of summary proceedings before the Supreme Court, be proved strictly.
In the course of an article headed " Man alleges police violence" a news- paper company and its acting editor published a statutory declaration by a man against whom police had laid two charges of false pretences, one of larceny and one of attempted bribery, in which he declared that he had been violently assaulted by police officers at a police station with a view to obtaining confessional statements from him, falsely charged with offering a bribe to a police officer and promised that if he signed a statement then presented to him the bribery charge would be dropped. As a result, he declared, he had signed certain statements, one of which dealt with his treatment by the police and attributed certain injuries, which he then bore, to a fight before his arrest. The declaration contained no information as to the contents of the other statements. The text of a letter sent by the man's solicitor to the Commis- sioner of Police complaining of serious and repeated assaults on his client by police officers and seeking an inquiry was also published in the article, which, by way of introduction, stated that the documents published spoke for them- selves and that the newspaper took no sides beyond pointing out that the matters raised by the documents called for the most searching investigation.
A rule nisi calling upon the company and its acting editor to show cause why they should not be dealt with for contempt was obtained from the Supreme
Court, upon affidavits which contained no information as to the circumstances upon which the four charges were based or as to the evidence by which they were to be supported. The affidavits failed to allege that the man in question had made statements to the police or to any other person no statements were exhibited to them, nor was anything said in them as to the contents of any statements. No information touching the bribery charge was given. The Supreme Court found contempt proved, on the footing that the matter contained in the publication bore directly on the voluntariness of the signed statements and SO upon their admissibility in evidence as confessions, and upon their probative value. Thus the essential foundation of the conviction was that the man after his arrest made statements of a confessional nature the contents of which would tend to support one or more of the charges laid against him.
Held, (by Dixon C.J., Fullagar, Kitto and Taylor JJ., McTiernan J. dis- senting), that there being no evidence that the…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Consolidated Press Ltd v McRae
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Consolidated Press Ltd v McRae [1955] HCA 11
Case
[1955] HCA 11
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Consolidated Press Ltd and its acting editor appealed to the High Court of Australia against a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales that found them guilty of contempt of court. The contempt arose from the publication in the Daily Telegraph newspaper of a statutory declaration by one Studley-Ruxton, who had been charged with several offences including false pretences, larceny, and attempted bribery. The statutory declaration alleged that Studley-Ruxton had been violently assaulted by police officers after his arrest with the aim of obtaining confessional statements, and that he had signed certain statements under duress.
The legal issues before the High Court were whether the publication of Studley-Ruxton's statutory declaration and a related letter from his solicitor constituted contempt of court. Specifically, the court had to determine if the published material tended to prejudice the fair trial of the charges pending against Studley-Ruxton, and if the Supreme Court had correctly applied the principles of contempt of court in finding the appellants guilty. The Supreme Court had based its decision on the premise that the published allegations directly addressed the voluntariness and admissibility of any confessional statements made by Studley-Ruxton, thereby potentially influencing the outcome of his trial.
A majority of the High Court (Dixon C.J., Fullagar, Kitto, and Taylor JJ.) held that contempt had not been made out. Their reasoning was that there was no evidence presented to the Supreme Court demonstrating that Studley-Ruxton had actually made any statements of a confessional nature relevant to the charges, or indeed any statements at all. The Court emphasised that the allegations within the statutory declaration itself could not be treated as evidence of the truth of those facts. The affidavits supporting the rule nisi for contempt lacked any information about the circumstances of the charges or the evidence supporting them, and crucially, did not establish that Studley-Ruxton had made any statements to the police. Without proof that such statements existed and were relevant to the pending charges, the essential foundation for the Supreme Court's finding of contempt – that the publication bore directly on the admissibility of confessions – was absent. The High Court also considered and rejected arguments that the publication could be contemptuous by arousing sympathy for Studley-Ruxton or by commenting on the bribery charge, finding these grounds insufficient on the evidence presented.
The High Court allowed the appeal, discharged the rule nisi, and set aside the fines imposed by the Supreme Court.