Contempt of Court—Contempt committed out of court—Summary jurisdiction of Supreme Court—Publication of matter likely to affect criminal trial—Proceedings imminent but not commenced at time of publication.

Decisions

August 8.
The following written judgments were delivered:-
KITTO, TAYLOR, MENZIES AND OWEN JJ. This is an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court of Western Australia which imposed penalties for contempt of court upon the appellants Western Press Limited (hereinafter called "the company") and Murray Willoughby James and directed that those appellants and the appellant Lionel John Toop pay the costs of the proceedings against them in which the penalties were imposed. (at p599)

2. The company was at the material time the publisher, and the appellant Toop the printer, of the "Sunday Times", a weekly newspaper which was published in Perth and which had a circulation throughout Western Australia. The appellant James was the editor of the paper. It was proved that in two issues thereof on Sunday 10th February 1963 there was published an account of two killings by a "wild gunman" in Perth. The articles clearly identified Robinson as the gunman and it was related that after killing two named persons in public places and threatening others he had secreted himself in a pine plantation some twenty square miles in area not far from Perth. The articles purported to report the accounts of various eye witnesses and it was said that an intensive "manhunt" was in progress at the time of the publication of the newspapers. Each account commenced with a banner headline, the first being "TWO MURDERED BY GUNMAN AT BELMONT" and the second, in even larger type, "2 MURDERED". Each account featured some photographs and in the latter issue was a photograph of the respondent as the "hunted" man. It is, we think, unnecessary to refer to the reports in detail for subject to one question of law which was debated they were clearly contempts as was frankly admitted. (at p600)

3. Very little information was contained in the affidavit in support of the application which was made to the Supreme Court. It does not even appear except by implication that the respondent was ever apprehended, but it is clear enough that it was not until Tuesday 12th February 1963 that complaints were sworn alleging two murders by Robinson and that on the following day he was charged and remanded in custody. It is not suggested, however, that he was apprehended before the publication in the ordinary course of the articles in question but, apparently, he was arrested without warrant at some time after publication and before the complaints were laid. It was common ground that at the time of the publication the respondent was "being hunted by large numbers of policemen with a view to his apprehension for complicity in the killings". (at p600)

4. In these circumstances two questions of…

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 James v Robinson

Details

AGLC: James v Robinson [1963] HCA 32
Case: [1963] HCA 32
Decision Date: 30 August 1963

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal concerning a dispute between James and Robinson. The case involved a claim for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the respondent, Robinson, had been contributorily negligent in the circumstances of the accident. This required the Court to consider the standard of care expected of a reasonable driver and whether Robinson's actions fell below that standard, thereby contributing to his own injuries.

The Court analysed the evidence presented regarding the events leading up to the collision. It was held that while James was primarily at fault for the accident, Robinson's conduct also warranted consideration. The Court applied the principles of contributory negligence, which allow for a reduction in damages where the plaintiff's own negligence has contributed to their loss. After reviewing the facts, the Court found that Robinson had indeed been contributorily negligent.

Consequently, the High Court ordered that the damages awarded to Robinson be reduced by a specified proportion to reflect his contributory negligence.

Orders