R v Australian Broadcasting Corporation

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) was prosecuted for contempt of court after it aired two news broadcasts on its regional radio channels that breached a suppression order. The suppression order, intended to prevent the reporting of certain information from a legal proceeding, was not disseminated by the court in accordance with established protocols. The ABC pleaded guilty to these breaches and additional charges that the broadcasts had the potential to interfere with the administration of justice. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the court's failure to follow protocol in disseminating the suppression order was a mitigating factor, and what procedures the ABC should have followed to ensure compliance with the order. Additionally, the court had to determine the appropriate penalties for the breaches and consider the principle of totality in sentencing.

The court found that the ABC was not aware of the suppression order because it had not been properly disseminated by the court, and there was a failure by the ABC to instruct its reporter to make inquiries before broadcasting. Despite this, the court held that the ABC was still responsible for ensuring that its broadcasts complied with legal orders. The court emphasised the importance of the media following proper procedures before publishing items where a relevant suppression order might be in place, even if the order has not been disseminated in accordance with protocol. In assessing the penalties, the court took into account the principle of totality, which ensures that the cumulative effect of multiple penalties does not result in excessive punishment. The court ultimately imposed fines on the ABC for the contempt charges, considering both the seriousness of the breaches and the mitigating factors present.

The court's reasoning and outcome underscore the responsibility of media organisations to verify the existence and terms of suppression orders before broadcasting, regardless of whether the court has followed proper dissemination protocols. The fines imposed reflect the balance between penalising the breaches and recognising the mitigating factors. The decision serves as a reminder to both the media and the courts of the importance of adhering to established procedures to prevent similar occurrences in the future. The court's emphasis on the principle of totality in sentencing also highlights the need for proportionality in penalising multiple offences.