R v Haydon (No 1) - [2004] SASC 437

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
In the Matter of A REGISTRAR'S SUMMONS ALLEGING CONTEMPT BY THE ADVERTISER NEWSPAPER PTY LTD
R v HAYDON (No 1)
Reasons for Ruling of The Honourable Justice Sulan
23 December 2004
PROCEDURE - CONTEMPT, ATTACHMENT AND SEQUESTRATION - CONTEMPT - WHAT CONSTITUTES - INTERFERENCE WITH COURSE OF JUSTICE AND ADMINISTRATION OF LAW - PREJUDICING FAIR TRIAL OF ACCUSED - NEWSPAPER, RADIO OR TELEVISION REPORT
Article published in The Advertiser Newspaper - published proceedings in the course of the trial and in the absence of the jury - inaccurate reporting - whether the report had a tendency to interfere with the due process of justice - whether a Registrar's Summons for contempt should issue.
Attorney-General v BBC & Hat Trick Productions [1997] EMLR 76; Attorney-General (NSW) v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd [1980] NSWLR 362; Attorney-General (NSW) v John Fairfax & Sons & Bacon (1985) 6 NSWLR 695; Hinch v The Attorney-General (Vic) (1987) 164 CLR 15; R v David Syme & Co Ltd [1982] VR 173, considered.

R v HAYDON (No 1)
[2004] SASC 437

SULAN J On Wednesday, 10 November 2004, the Advertiser Newspaper Pty Ltd (“the Advertiser”) published an article under the headline “Haydon to Take Stand”. The headline also included the words, “Secrecy Ends on Alleged Snowtown Killer”. The article was written following an intimation by counsel for the accused that her client may be likely to give evidence. That intimation was made in response to question by me, and in the absence of the jury. Counsel made it clear that she did not wish to bind her client until the defence case commenced the next day. She said:
“I’m intimating to your Honour that my client is likely, can I put it as high as that, to assist the court, out of courtesy, to give evidence tomorrow. It depends what happens in cross-examination what other witnesses are likely to be called”.
I responded that I understood it was an intimation only, and the position might change when she obtained final instructions. That exchange resulted in the headline to which I have earlier referred and, in my view, was misleading in that a reader of the headline could conclude that a final decision had been made by Mr Haydon to give evidence.
The article which appeared under the headline contained a number of inaccurate statements. They included:
“They [referring to the prosecution] also say he played a role in the murders of Michael James Gardiner, Barry Wayne Lane, Gavin Allan Porter, Frederick John Brooks, Gary O’Dwyer and David Terrence Johnson.”
The article further stated:
“The prosecution had alleged Haydon murdered his wife because he was concerned she would ‘expose’ his involvement in the killings”.
The two references which I have quoted above were inaccurate. At the trial, it was never the prosecution case that Mr Haydon was involved in the murders of those people who were named. It was the prosecution case that he became involved after the murders…

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 R v Haydon (No 1)

Details

AGLC: R v Haydon (No 1) [2004] SASC 437
Case: [2004] SASC 437
Decision Date: 23 December 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Haydon (No 1) involved a contempt proceeding brought against The Advertiser Newspaper for publishing proceedings during the course of a criminal trial in the absence of the jury. The publication contained inaccuracies that could potentially prejudice the fair trial of the accused. The South Australian Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether the newspaper report had a tendency to interfere with the due process of justice and whether a Registrar's Summons for contempt should be issued.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the published report constituted contempt by potentially interfering with the course of justice and administration of law, specifically by prejudicing the fair trial of the accused. The court had to consider the extent to which the inaccurate reporting could influence public perception and the potential impact on the trial's outcome. The court also needed to assess the balance between the freedom of the press and the necessity to protect the integrity of the judicial process.

In its reasoning, the court examined precedents such as Attorney-General v BBC & Hat Trick Productions, Attorney-General (NSW) v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd, Attorney-General (NSW) v John Fairfax & Sons & Bacon, Hinch v The Attorney-General (Vic), and R v David Syme & Co Ltd. These cases provided guidance on the standards and considerations relevant to determining whether media reports could amount to contempt. The court concluded that the published report did indeed have a tendency to interfere with the due process of justice, given the inaccuracies and the timing of the publication. Consequently, the court found that a Registrar's Summons for contempt should issue.

The final orders of the court directed that a summons for contempt be issued against The Advertiser Newspaper, emphasising the importance of accurate and responsible reporting in the context of ongoing judicial proceedings to safeguard the fairness and integrity of the trial process.

Orders