Consolidated Press Ltd v McRae

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.