Legal Research
Cases
John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd v McRae

John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd v McRae

Link copied

Case Copied 18 March 1955 49 min read

Contents

On this page

93 CLR 351

JOHN FAIRFAX &SONS PTY. LTD. McRAE REYNOLDS McRAE

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT

OF NEW SOUTH WALES. Contempt of court-Publication by newspaper--Allegations of police violence-

Charges pending in court of petty sessions-Tendency to prejudice proceedings -Summary jurisdiction of Supreme Court-Public interest-Similar allega- tions-Judicial inquiry already ordered.

The Supreme Court has power to deal summarily not only with contempt of itself, but with contempt of any inferior court.

Re Syme Ex parte Worthington (1902) 28 V.L.R. 552, overruled. The appellant company (the proprietor of a newspaper), the editor of that MELBOURNE, newspaper and a solicitor were summarily charged, before the Supreme Court of New South Wales, with contempt of court in relation to a publication in the newspaper. The publication, which dealt with certain matter relating to the arrest of a person and contained allegations of violent and unprovoked assaults upon him by police officers on and shortly after his arrest, was headed

Police Violence Alleged and consisted of a statutory declaration by the accused. The text of a letter, written by the solicitor for the accused to the Premier referring to the accused as having been falsely charged and seeking an investigation, was included in the publication, which also stated that the

93 CLR 352

truth of the allegations made could only be determined by judicial process but were considered by the newspaper to be sufficiently grave to require investigation by Royal Commission. Three charges had been preferred against the accused before the publication and were pending at the time of publication. One of the charges was punishable summarily in a court of petty sessions only. The other two charges, as laid, were punishable sum- marily, but could have been the subject of indictments. On the third charge the accused could have been committed for trial by the justices. On the day before the publication complained of, the appointment of a judicial inquiry into certain allegations of a similar nature, made in a statutory declaration published in another newspaper, had been announced by the

Held, that the matter published, having regard to all the circumstances attending its publication, did not have that real and definite tendency to prejudice or embarrass pending proceedings which is the essence of a contempt of the kind alleged.

A mere tendency to create a general prejudice against the police is insufficient to relate the publication to the charges pending.

The summary jurisdiction to punish for contempt should be exercised with great caution, and, in this particular class of case, only if it is made quite clear that the matter published has, as a matter of practical reality, a tendency to interfere with the due course of justice in a particular case.

The actual intention or purpose lying behind a publication in cases of this kind is never a decisive consideration, but is always regarded as relevant, its importance varying according to circumstances.

Decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Full Court) Ex parte McRae; Re John Fairfax &Sons Pty.…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd v McRae and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1955] HCA 12
Decision Date: 18 March 1955

CaseChat Overview and Summary

John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd, the proprietor of the Sydney Morning Herald, its editor, and a solicitor appealed to the High Court of Australia against their conviction for contempt of court by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The contempt arose from the publication of a statutory declaration by one Alan Pierpoint Rigby, which detailed allegations of violent assaults by police officers upon him following his arrest. At the time of publication, three charges were pending against Rigby in a court of petty sessions, one of which was exclusively triable summarily.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the published material had a real and definite tendency to prejudice or embarrass the pending proceedings, and whether the Supreme Court possessed the jurisdiction to summarily punish contempts of inferior courts. The appellants argued that the publication did not have the requisite tendency to prejudice the specific charges, that the charges were not of a nature that would reach the Supreme Court, and that the Supreme Court lacked the power to deal with contempts of courts of petty sessions. The respondent contended for the broader jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to punish contempts of any court.

The High Court held that the Supreme Court of New South Wales did have the jurisdiction to deal summarily with contempts of inferior courts, overturning the previous decision in *Re Syme Ex parte Worthington*. This jurisdiction was seen as a historical aspect of the supervisory role of superior courts. However, the Court found that the published material, when considered in its entirety and in the context of the surrounding circumstances, including the recent announcement of a judicial inquiry into similar allegations, did not possess a real and definite tendency to prejudice the specific proceedings against Rigby. The Court emphasised that a mere tendency to create general prejudice against the police was insufficient and that summary jurisdiction for contempt should be exercised with great caution, requiring a clear practical reality of interference with justice.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeals and set aside the convictions for contempt. The Court concluded that the publication, while potentially critical of police conduct, did not, as a matter of practical reality, have a tendency to interfere with the due course of justice in relation to the pending charges. The Court also noted that the intention behind the publication, while not decisive, was a relevant consideration.

Orders