Contempt of Court—Publication tending to influence court proceedings—Public interest in due administration of justice—Public interest in freedom of expression—Balancing of interests—Pending criminal trial—Absence of intention to interfere with administration of justice—Significance—Costs.
Decisions
MASON C.J. The foundation of the modern law of contempt as it applies to publications which have an impact on cases coming before the courts is the judgment of Jordan C.J. in Ex parte Bread Manufacturers Ltd.; Re Truth and Sportsman Ltd. (1937) 37 SR (NSW) 242, at pp 249-250. The issue there was whether the respondents, in publishing articles concerning the bread trade which were incidentally critical of the applicant's activities in that trade, had committed a contempt in relation to civil proceedings for libel and conspiracy in which the applicant was a defendant. Some articles had been published after these proceedings had been commenced. His Honour sought to balance the competing public interests: one, the need to protect the integrity of the administration of justice, and the other, the protection of freedom of expression, especially when that freedom of expression is exercised in relation to a topic which is, or should be, of concern to the public or a section of the public. The judgment has had a profound influence on the law of contempt, not only in Australia but elsewhere, notably in the United Kingdom.
2. The critical passage is in these terms:
"It is of extreme public interest that no conduct should be permitted which is likely to prevent a litigant in a Court of justice from having his case tried free from all matter of prejudice. But the administration of justice, important though it undoubtedly is, is not the only matter in which the public is vitally interested; and if in the course of the ventilation of a question of public concern matter is published which may prejudice a party in the conduct of a law suit, it does not follow that a contempt has been committed. The case may be one in which as between competing matters of public interest the possibility of prejudice to a litigant may be required to yield to other and superior considerations. The discussion of public affairs and the denunciation of public abuses, actual or supposed, cannot be required to be suspended merely because the discussion or the denunciation may, as an incidental but not intended by-product, cause some likelihood of prejudice to a person who happens at the time to be a litigant.
It is well settled that a person cannot be prevented by process of contempt from continuing to discuss publicly a matter which may fairly be regarded as one of public interest, by reason merely of the fact that the matter in question has become the subject of litigation, or that a person whose conduct is being publicly…
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 Hinch v Attorney-General (Vic)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Hinch v Attorney-General (Vic) [1987] HCA 56
Case
[1987] HCA 56
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Gerard Hinch against the Attorney-General of Victoria concerning the publication of certain information. Hinch, a media personality, had published details about individuals who had been convicted of serious sexual offences but had subsequently been acquitted on appeal or had their convictions overturned. The Attorney-General sought to restrain further publication on the grounds that it constituted a contempt of court.
The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the publication of information relating to past criminal proceedings, even where convictions were later quashed or set aside, could amount to a contempt of court. Specifically, the court had to determine if such publications had a tendency to interfere with the administration of justice, particularly in relation to the reputation of the individuals involved and the public perception of the justice system.
The High Court held that the publication of information about past convictions, even if later overturned, did not necessarily constitute a contempt of court. The court reasoned that for a publication to be considered a contempt, it must demonstrate a real and substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice. In this instance, the court found that the publications, while potentially embarrassing or damaging to the reputation of the individuals concerned, did not create a substantial risk of prejudice to any ongoing or future judicial proceedings. The court distinguished between publications that might prejudice a fair trial and those that merely comment on past events, even if those events involved the justice system. The appeal was allowed.