| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
No. S CI 2013 03249
BETWEEN
| THE QUEEN (ON THE APPLICATION OF THE PROTHONOTARY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA) | Applicant |
| And | |
| DERRYN HINCH | Respondent |
---
JUDGE: | KAYE J | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 11 October 2013 | |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 18 October 2013 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | The Queen v Hinch (No 2) | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2013] VSC 554 | |
---
CONTEMPT OF COURT – Sentence – Breach of suppression order – Relevant considerations – Apology – Whether apology sincere – Disposition – Costs.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Applicant | Mr J Langmead SC and Ms F Forsyth | The Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office |
| For the Respondent | Mr D Gilbertson | HWL Ebsworth Lawyers |
HIS HONOUR:
Derryn Hinch. On 2 October, I found you guilty of one charge of contempt of court, alleged against you in this proceeding.[1] It is now necessary for me to determine what sentence should be imposed upon you.
The circumstances of the contempt are set out, in some detail, in my decision, and it is only necessary to summarise them briefly.
On 28 September 2012, Victoria Police filed charges against Adrian Ernest Bayley (“Bayley”) charging him with rape and murder in respect of the death of Gillian Edie Meagher. On 12 March 2013, at a committal hearing in that proceeding, Bayley pleaded guilty to one count of rape, but not guilty to two other charges of rape and the charge of murder. On the same day, he was committed for trial in the Supreme Court on those charges.
In the meantime, on 1 February, and subsequently on 4 March 2013, Victoria Police filed twelve charges against Bayley in three separate proceedings in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court. I shall refer to those proceedings as “the first proceedings”. The charges brought against Bayley included charges of rape and other acts of violence against three female victims. Those proceedings are unrelated to the proceedings regarding the murder of Gillian Meagher.
On 5 April 2013, at approximately 10.30 am, you uploaded onto your website an article, entitled “Jill Meagher”.
On the same day, at 2.18 pm, Bayley pleaded guilty, before Nettle JA of this Court, to one count of rape and one count of murder of Gillian Meagher. His Honour made orders, the effect of which was to prohibit the publication of (inter alia), any information relating to previous convictions or previous criminal cases of Bayley, any information relating to the pending first proceedings in the Magistrates’ Court, and any other matter reasonably likely to reflect adversely upon Bayley’s character.
In my decision, I found that the article, published by you on your website, contravened the orders made by Nettle JA in four material respects. In particular, the article referred to the fact that Bayley was on bail at the time at which he murdered Gillian Meagher; it referred to the fact that Bayley was also on…
Continue reading R v Derryn Hinch
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Derryn Hinch [2013] VSC 554
- Case
- [2013] VSC 554
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining several key legal issues. These included the relevance of the respondent's apology in assessing the seriousness of the contempt, whether the apology was sincere, and the appropriate considerations in determining the appropriate penalty. Additionally, the court had to decide on the costs associated with the proceedings.
In its judgment, the court noted that while the respondent had issued an apology, it found it to be lacking in sincerity. The court emphasised that genuine remorse is a significant factor in sentencing for contempt of court. The court also considered the respondent's disposition and the impact of his actions on the administration of justice. Ultimately, the court imposed a fine of $100,000, with an alternative imprisonment of fifty days should the fine not be paid. The court further ordered the respondent to pay the applicant's costs on the standard basis.
Orders
Orders of the court
Subject to any submissions from the parties, I therefore propose to make the following orders:
(1) That you are adjudged guilty, and are convicted, of contempt of court for making a publication in relation to criminal proceedings against Adrian Ernest Bayley on the website humanheadline.com.au from 8 April 2013 to 9 April 2013, in contravention of a non-publication order of the Supreme Court dated 5 April 2013.
(2) That you pay a fine of $100,000 in respect of that contempt. In default of the payment by you of that fine, you are sentenced to fifty days’ imprisonment.
(3) For the purpose of the order in paragraph (2), a warrant of committal be issued but that it lie in the office of the Prothonotary until the date fixed for payment of the fine. In the event of the payment of that fine by you by that date, the warrant be forever stayed.
(4) That you pay the applicant’s costs of the proceeding, including any reserved costs, on the standard basis.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.