Nicholls v Director of Public Prosecutions

The appellant, Arthur Christopher Nicholls, a journalist employed by the Australian Broadcasting Commission, was charged with three counts of impersonation, one count of false pretences, and one count of forgery. He was acquitted on all counts by a jury. However, during the course of the trial, Nicholls refused to identify the source of his information, citing an undertaking to keep the source's identity confidential and a code of ethics for journalists. The trial judge directed Nicholls to answer the question, and when he refused, he was found guilty of contempt of court and sentenced to four months imprisonment. Nicholls appealed the severity of the punishment.

The appeal raised several issues, including whether the trial judge erred in considering the nature of the contempt, failing to consider the consequences of the contempt on Nicholls as a journalist, and not considering his personal circumstances and the consequences of imprisonment on his family. The court also considered whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and if the trial judge erred in considering remissions.

The Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia allowed the appeal and substituted a sentence of nine weeks imprisonment. The court held that the trial judge was correct in rejecting Nicholls' claim of an absolute privilege to protect his source's identity, as no such privilege exists in law. The court also held that the trial judge did not err in considering the consequences of the contempt on Nicholls as a journalist, as the law does not recognise any immunity for journalists in such circumstances. Furthermore, the court found that the trial judge properly considered Nicholls' personal circumstances and the consequences of imprisonment on his family, and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. Lastly, the court held that the trial judge erred in considering remissions, as Nicholls was not serving a sentence of imprisonment but was committed to prison for contempt of court.