Registrar v Nationwide News Limited; Registrar v The Age Company Ltd; Registrar v The Herald & Weekly Times Ltd
[2004] SASC 223
•29 July 2004
SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)
REGISTRAR v NATIONWIDE NEWS LIMITED; REGISTRAR v THE AGE COMPANY LTD; REGISTRAR v THE HERALD & WEEKLY TIMES LTD
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Gray
29 July 2004
PROCEDURE - CONTEMPT, ATTACHMENT AND SEQUESTRATION - POWER OF COURT TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT
Defendants published photograph the subject of a suppression order - defendants unaware of supression order - contempt proceedings initiated - plea of not guilty entered by third defendant - found guilty following trial - guilty pleas entered by first and second defendants - submission as to penalty heard together - whether Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act applies to civil contempt - considerations relevant to penalty - each defendant convicted and fined.
Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1987 (SA); Supreme Court Rules r 93.06; r 93.08, referred to.
Registrar of the Supreme Court v Herald and Weekly Times Limited [2004] SASC 127; R v Garve (1996) 65 SASR 483; Registrar of the Supreme Court v Temple (No 3) [2003] SASC 199; Registrar of the Supreme Court v Zappia (No 2) (2003) 86 SASR 410; Registrar of the Supreme Court v Maniam (No 2) (1992) 26 NSWLR 309; Registrar of the Supreme Court v The Advertiser (17 May 1996, unreported); Registrar of the Supreme Court v Channel 9 SA Pty Ltd (2001) 212 LSJS 90, considered.
REGISTRAR v NATIONWIDE NEWS LIMITED; REGISTRAR v THE AGE COMPANY LTD; REGISTRAR v THE HERALD & WEEKLY TIMES LTD
[2004] SASC 223Remarks as to Penalty
GRAY J Nationwide News Limited, The Age Company Limited and The Herald and Weekly Times Ltd committed the offences of contempt of court. All offences occurred in similar circumstances. Each newspaper published a photograph in breach of a suppression order made in relation to a pending murder trial. Submissions as to penalty were made during a joint hearing.
Nationwide News Limited is the publisher of The Australian, The Age Company Limited is the publisher of The Age and The Herald and Weekly Times Ltd is the publisher of The Herald Sun. Each publication is a daily newspaper with circulation in South Australia.
The Order
On 21 June 2001 counsel for Jason Spyridon Vlassakis, a defendant in “the Snowtown” murder trial, made application to the Trial Judge of this court to suppress from publication images of his client. Much of the detail of the application was not disclosed in open court. The application itself was suppressed. The judge heard submissions from Mr Vlassakis’ counsel, counsel for the Crown and solicitors representing the media who were in court at the time of the application. Counsel for the Crown supported the application. Media representatives argued against the making of suppression orders. The judge made a suppression order in the following terms:
Order suppressing publication of the image of Mr Vlassakis in any form, including photographs, sketches and illustrations.
Further order suppressing publication of any description of Mr Vlassakis, that is, of his appearance, which would have the capacity to lead to identification of him by a reader of the description.
The orders will remain in force until further order, but His Honour indicated that it his intention to review orders on the next appearance of Mr Vlassakis in this court.
…
REASONS:
To prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice.
Representatives of The Herald and Weekly Times Limited and The Age Company Limited were not present in court when the suppression order was discussed. A representative of Nationwide News Ltd was present and made submissions to the judge.
The Publications
On 11 July 2002 articles each featuring a photograph within the terms of the suppression order were published in The Australian, The Age and The Herald Sun newspapers. Each article included a photograph of Mr Vlassakis, which clearly showed his face.
The Australian
On the day of publication the Trial Judge’s attention was drawn to the article. An unreserved apology was proffered by counsel for Nationwide News Limited. It was said that steps had been taken to ensure that no further suppressed material would be printed.
In a letter to the Trial Judge dated 24 July 2002 Nationwide News Ltd outlined the circumstances by which the photograph came to be published in The Australian:
In this instance, human error lead to the system breaking down. The sequence was:
At about 6.30pm on July 10, the nightly page one conference was told by the national chief of staff, Michelle Gilchrist, that the paper’s legal advisers in Adelaide were satisfied that within certain restrains the paper could run an article on the Vlassaskis conviction in all editions, including South Australia. The editor decided to run the story on page one, but there was no discussion about running a photograph of Vlassakis, nor about any suppression order on such a photograph.
The 7pm ABC news broadcast from Sydney included a report on the Vlassakis conviction which included visual footage of him under arrest. The editor…saw the footage and requested …to include a headshot of Vlassakis with the page one article. At that stage, neither the editor nor the layout sub-editor knew of the continuing suppression order on publishing Vlassakis photograph within South Australia.
…the night editor asked the deputy picture editor … to find the photograph.
After completing another task, the deputy picture editor conducted a search of the picture archives and located the photograph which the paper ended up publishing. He notice the following caption on the image:
ATTENTION DO NOT USE THESE PICTURES WITHOUT THE EDITOR’S PERMISSION – SUPPRESSED IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA
…
After reading the caption, the deputy picture editor assumed that it could be published either because the suppression order on the photograph had been lifted or the paper was publishing in states other than South Australia.
The deputy picture editor called the night editor to his desk and asked whether it was OK to use the photograph, but did not draw the suppression warning on the caption to his attention, on the assumption that the query itself was enough of an alert.
…
At about 8.00am (Sydney time) the next morning, the reporter telephoned the editor at home to express alarm at seeing the Vlassakis photograph in the South Australian edition of the newspaper. This was the first time the editor became aware of the order.
…
The decision to publish was made in good faith. Having regard to the story relating to the sentencing for multiple murders, no concerns were triggered in the editor’s mind about the use of the photograph. It was the editor’s decision to publish.
The Age
Following counsel for Nationwide News’ appearance on the day of publication, counsel for The Age Company Ltd also appeared. An unreserved apology was proffered.
In a letter to the Trial Judge dated 23 July 2002 The Age Company Ltd outlined the circumstances by which the photograph came to be published in The Age:
…The Age is a Victorian-based newspaper with a daily circulation in Victoria in excess of 200,000 copies. A total of 2,714 newspapers were sent to South Australia on 11 July 2002. Based on average Thursday figures, it is estimated that some 1,800 would have been sold…
Awareness of suppression orders is generally high. All staff have thorough journalistic training obtained through their university studies, cadetships and ongoing training…
To my knowledge, the Age has never published an article or photograph in breach of a suppression order made in Victoria. I have been informed that The Age has not been prosecuted for contempt in this State since 1981. In that time the Age would have published thousands of court related stories.
…
The subject article came to The Age from AAP. There was no warning of a suppression order concerning the image of Mr Vlassakis’ sentence for murder, the usual warning signals as to the issue of identification with a murder suspect did not go off. No one involved in the decision to publish suspected there was a problem. The photograph was published in good faith.
…
On the date that the photograph was published, we were made aware by Ms Debelle that it had been done in violation of the suppression order. Ms Debelle promptly informed the Court and it was quickly decided that a formal apology should be made to the Court and that it should be raised with the Court as to what steps could be taken to ensure that no copies of The Age were distributed within correctional services facilities in South Australia…
The Herald Sun
On 12 July 2002, the day following publication, the Trial Judge’s attention was drawn to an article published in The Herald Sun that contained the photograph. An unreserved apology was proffered by counsel for The Herald and Weekly Times Ltd. It was said that steps had been taken to ensure that no further suppressed material would be printed.
In a letter to the Trial Judge dated 24 July 2002 The Herald and Weekly Times Ltd outlined the circumstances by which the photograph came to be published:
The Herald Sun is published by The Herald and Weekly Times Limited. It is a major metropolitan Victorian newspaper.
Estimated publication figures of The Herald Sun in South Australia for 11 July 2002 were 987 copies in Adelaide and a further 1,705 copies in the country (including Mount Gambier where 1,150 are sold). These figures are currently best estimates, as the final returns have not yet been received …
…
In this instance, the relevant story was received from AAP. All previous stories concerning Snowtown received from AAP notified of relevant suppression orders. It was only on this story that the relevant suppression order was not notified. It is customary that all relevant suppression orders are notified at the top of copy received from AAP.
The Contempt Charges
On 26 July 2002 the matters came before the Trial Judge. It was submitted that the Registrar of the Supreme Court should not be directed to issue proceedings charging contempt. The judge rejected this submission and directed that contempt proceedings be instituted against all three newspapers.
On 30 July 2002 Registrar’s summonses for contempt were issued. The summonses provided:
…that [Nationwide News Limited, The Age Company Limited and The Herald & Weekly Times] did on the 11th day of July 2002 publish in [the relevant newspaper] circulated in South Australia a photograph of James Spyridon Vlassakis in breach of the order of the Supreme Court of South Australia made on 21 June 2001 suppressing publication of the image of James Spyridon Vlassakis in any form, including photographs, sketches and illustrations: Sections 69A and 70 of the Evidence Act 1929.
On 16 August 2002 counsel for Nationwide News Limited and The Age Company Limited indicated their intention to plead guilty to the charge of contempt. Counsel for The Herald and Weekly Times indicated its intention to enter a plea of not guilty. The question of penalty for the contempts by Nationwide News Ltd and The Age Company Limited was adjourned to the conclusion of the hearing of the charge against The Herald and Weekly Times Ltd.
Following The Herald and Weekly Times Ltd’s plea of not guilty, the contempt charge proceeded before this court. The Herald and Weekly Times were found guilty of contempt.[1] The published reasons concluded:
At common law knowledge of the existence of the relevant order has been treated as an essential requirement of the offence of contempt. However, the statutory regime imposed by section 69 and 70 of the Evidence Act alters that position.
While the action of The Herald and Weekly Times in publishing the photograph was not a wilful or deliberate disobedience of a court order, it was an act in disobedience in breach of the order nonetheless. The order was framed in terms that indicated that the judge intended it to apply to all people, not just those within the courtroom at the time the order was made.
The Herald and Weekly Times is guilty of contempt.
[1] [2004] SASC 127
The following observations were made about the legislative scheme:
The legislative scheme is such as to regulate certain activities in the community, in particular those concerned with the publication of court related materials. A departure from the standards set by the legislation will be harmful to the administration of justice. The legislation is regulatory and designed to protect the fair trial of an accused and those involved in the administration of justice. In the present case the co-operation and assistance of a proposed witness Mr Vlassakis was important to the Crown and his protection vital. The order made was to assist the Department of Correctional Services in preventing any harm coming to Mr Vlassakis as a consequence of his decision to give evidence for the prosecution.
The legislature creates a system of recording suppression orders which are then available to the public for inspection. It is by this process that those with an interest in the subject matter may check whether they are able to publish the information.
The following comments were made:
It is important that the court make clear and express directions about what material is available for publication and which is to be suppressed. Once an order has been made the burden shifts to the person seeking to publish material to ensure that the material is not the subject of a suppression order.
It is the duty of the court to inform the wider community of the existence and terms of a suppression order. This duty is satisfied by compliance with the legislative requirement to notify the Sheriff and by maintaining a complete and up to date Suppression Order Register. From that point, it is the obligation of the media and others to make enquiries to ensure the material they intend to publish is not subject to any suppression orders.
The legislation treats the media as a special category. The media is entitled to make submissions to the court on the hearing of an application for an order and to appeal from the making of such an order.
While the actions of the newspapers in publishing the photograph was not a wilful or deliberate disobedience of a court order, it was an act in disobedience in breach of the order nonetheless. The order was framed in terms that indicated that the judge intended it to apply to all people, not just those within the courtroom at the time the order was made.
Submissions on Penalty
It was accepted by Counsel for the Crown who appeared for the Registrar, that the publications in breach of the order were unintentional. Each defendant was unaware of the existence of the suppression order until publication of the article had occurred and the newspapers were in circulation in South Australia. It was submitted by counsel for each of the defendants, and accepted by counsel for the Crown, that the defendants did not act in wilful or deliberate disobedience of the court order. It was also accepted that the photographs were not published on the internet sites of the newspapers.
Nationwide News Limited
Counsel for Nationwide News Ltd outlined to the court the steps taken subsequent to the breach to minimise its effect. Nationwide News first became aware of the breach on 11 July 2002, the day of publication. Instructions were given to lawyers for Nationwide News to attend to inform the court of the breach and to proffer an unreserved apology. Steps were taken to advise the Department of Corrections to remove The Australian newspaper from circulation in prisons. Counsel estimated that the circulation of The Australian in South Australia on that day was in the order of 15,000 copies. Counsel emphasised there has not been any apparent harm suffered as a result of the breach in this instance.
Counsel submitted that at the time of the breach, all relevant staff received legal and ethical training which covered the subject of suppression orders. It was said that within the organisation there was a high degree of awareness of the need for compliance with suppression orders. There was, although inadequate, a system in place to avoid the publication of suppressed materials. Counsel conceded that the system failed in this case as a result of human error.
Following the breach, it was submitted that the paper investigated the factors behind the error and took steps to improve and ‘tighten procedures’. A new procedure was put in place whereby captions warning of publication limitations must remain attached to the picture until checked by at least three editors prior to publication. Also, journalists must attach a warning to their written work if there are suppression orders which may effect the addition of photographic material to the story. A memorandum was forwarded to all staff about the breach in this matter.
In addition, a system of national legal alerts on the Nationwide News intranet site was implemented. The court was told that the system requires all offices of News Group Limited to post the details of suppression orders and legal alerts onto a national database. This allows journalists and editors to search for orders in the state relevant to the story under consideration. Staff are instructed to check this page frequently to ensure that any legal issues are highlighted and addressed. This system requires a member of staff to check court suppression registries on a regularly, if not daily, basis.
Counsel finally submitted that the publisher should receive the benefit of a plea of guilty to the charge of contempt at the earliest opportunity. Counsel also drew the courts attention to the lack of antecedents of The Australian newspaper published by Nationwide News.
The Age Company Limited
Counsel for The Age Company Limited outlined the steps taken subsequent to the breach to minimise its effect. The Age Company Limited first became aware of the breach on 11 July 2002, the day of publication. Instructions were given to lawyers for The Age Company Limited to attend to inform the court of the breach and to proffer an unreserved apology. Action was taken to remove the newspapers from circulation in South Australian prisons. Counsel also highlighted that the circulation of The Age in South Australia was limited. It was estimated that only 1,800 copies were sold in South Australia that day. Counsel emphasised there has not been any apparent harm suffered as a result of the breach in this instance.
Counsel submitted that at the time of the breach, all relevant staff received legal and ethical training which covered the subject of suppression orders. There was, although inadequate, a system in place to avoid the publication of suppressed materials. Counsel conceded that the system failed as it was reliant upon third parties advising The Age of such orders.
Following the breach, the Age Company Limited took steps to ensure that such a breach was not repeated. A letter from the deputy editor set out those steps as follows:
- a memorandum was forwarded to all editors, journalists and layout staff on 16 July 2002 reminding them of the need to comply with all suppression orders made in any jurisdiction where The Age is distributed …
- detailed warnings were attached to all photographs of Mr Vlassakis that are maintained on our online database
As was explained in material before the court, the story printed was received from Australian Associated Press (AAP). No warnings of any possible suppression order was attached to that article. Following the breach in this case, a request has been made of AAP to attach warning and other file notes to articles.
A further measure was implemented whereby photographs the subject of suppression orders are removed from the general database and locked into a restricted database. These photographs are not available without the express permission of the picture editor or the legal department.
A new system of alerts on photographs was implemented. The reporter responsible for a particular story would file a warning about any suppressed material.
Counsel drew the court’s attention to the antecedents of The Age Company Limited. The newspaper has three prior convictions for contempt. It was said that this was a commendable record for a newspaper which had been in publication for some 148 years. Finally it was submitted that an appropriate reduction in penalty should be made on account of the early plea.
The Herald and Weekly Times
Counsel for The Herald Sun outlined the steps that were taken subsequent to the breach to minimise its effect. The Herald and Weekly Times first became aware of the breach on 11 July 2002, the day of publication. Instructions were given to its lawyers to attend to inform the court of the breach and to proffer an unreserved apology. Action was taken to remove the newspapers from circulation in South Australian prisons. Counsel highlighted that the circulation of The Herald Sun in South Australia was limited. It was submitted there had not been any apparent harm suffered as a result of the breach in this instance.
Counsel submitted that at the time of the breach, all relevant staff received legal and ethical training covering the subject of suppression orders. There was, although inadequate, a system in place to avoid the publication of suppressed materials. Counsel conceded that the system failed as it was reliant upon third party advice.
Following the breach, a new system of national legal alerts on The Herald and Weekly Times Ltd intranet site was implemented. The system commenced operation in May 2004. The court was told that the system requires all offices of News Group Limited to post the details of suppression orders and legal alerts onto a national database. This allows journalists and editors to search for orders relevant to the story under consideration.
It was submitted that although The Herald and Weekly Times entered a plea of not guilty to the charge, they should not suffer for that decision. This is correct. A party is not to suffer any punishment for pleading not guilty. Whether a reduction on account of contrition or remorse and for matters in the public interest is made is a different matter.
The Herald and Weekly Times admitted the conduct and demonstrated contrition from the outset. Counsel argued that the point of law resolved on the hearing of the contempt charge was one that was uncertain and reasonably arguable. Counsel drew the court’s attention to the decision in R v Garve[2] where Mullighan J observed:
In my view the appellant is entitled to some credit on account of his co-operation with the authorities which includes his giving evidence which materially assisted the Crown in the case against Reardon, even though this evidence was given in his own defence. This is an unusual case. It is not a case of an accused trying to cast blame upon a co-accused in order to falsely try and exonerate himself and thereby assisting the Crown. Such a case would not merit any reduction in the sentencing process. It is a case of an accused disclosing the circumstances of the crime, including his own involvement and implicating his co-accused. Like Lane, it was for the law to say if he was guilty of murder. His plea of not guilty did not deny his remorse and contrition and the value of his co-operation. In the circumstances it is an error, in my view, to say that the appellant was not entitled to any benefit from his assistance to the Crown because it was “the coincidental result of his own defence’. In the unusual circumstances of this case he was entitled to some additional benefit for that reason.
The Herald and Weekly Times is entitled to some benefit for its prompt apology and evident contrition.
[2] (1996) 65 SASR 483 at 489
Counsel drew the courts attention to the antecedents of The Herald and Weekly Times. The newspaper has three prior convictions for contempt, all of which occurred in Victoria. It was submitted that this was a commendable record for a newspaper which had been in publication since 1840.
DPP Submissions
While counsel for the Crown accepted that each publication of the suppressed material was inadvertent, and that the publication had taken place in good faith, it was submitted that the ramifications of such publications could have been, and could still be, dire.
Counsel acknowledged that each defendant had taken steps prior to this occurrence to prevent such a contempt occurring. While those systems were inadequate in the circumstances, the steps subsequently taken to develop better and more reliable systems to prevent a contempt re-occurring were accepted as indicative of a responsible approach by the defendants to their duties and obligations regarding the administration of justice.
Counsel noted the systems now in place to prevent publication of suppressed material, but observed that the only way to ensure that a such breach of a suppression order would not occur would be to check the suppression order register at the end of each day. While a frequent check could prevent such a circumstance arising in most situations, only a daily check would ensure the every suppression order made by a court would be registered and complied with by publishers.
Counsel pointed out that although to this time, none of the potential adverse consequences of the breach had occurred, problems could still arise. Applications for leave to appeal are pending with the attendant possibility of a retrial for the first of the Snowtown trials. The second Snowtown trial has yet to begin. The defendants’ breaches could still have adverse consequences.
Counsel submitted that the Snowtown trials were of great public interest and had received significant media and public attention. It was contended that although no adverse consequences have flowed, the potential ramifications of the breaches of the suppression order were significant. It was noted that the steps to prevent distribution of the papers including the suppressed material in South Australian prisons on the day of publication was an action initiated and conducted by the DPP rather than the publishers.
Counsel submitted that the court should impose penalties to reflect the seriousness of the offences and provide a general deterrent for the newspapers and other media outlets. Indeed it was said that the penalties need to reflect considerations of the deterrent effect not only to each publication company, but to the journalists and editors responsible for the publications. It was submitted that convictions should be recorded and substantial fines imposed. Emphasis was placed on the need for publishers to ensure that their systems are regularly reviewed so as to eliminate future, inadvertent contemptuous publications.
Penalty
In Registrar of the Supreme Court of South Australia v Temple (No 3) Bleby J observed:[3]
There does not appear to be any express provision in the Supreme Court Act 1935 dealing with contempt of court. It seems clear enough, however, that there is an inherent power in the court to punish for contempt, and that the inherent power extends to the imposition of penalties apart from those expressly referred to in the rules.
[3] [2000] SASC 199
The range of possible penalties open to the court on a finding of contempt are set out in Supreme Court Rule 1987 (SA) r 93.08:
1) The Court may punish contempt of Court by committal of the person to prison or fine or both, or by the imposition of a bond to be of good behaviour with such other conditions as may be proper, and by ordering the person to pay the costs of the contempt proceedings.
(2) When the Court imposes a fine, it may allow time to pay and in default of payment within that time order that the person be imprisoned for a fixed period.
(3) The Court may on the person making proper tender of apology and amends recall or reconsider any previous order of the court punishing him for his contempt.”
Rule 93.06 provides:
When the said person comes before the Court for the hearing or the adjourned hearing of the charge, the procedure shall be:
......
(h) where the penalty for the contempt includes an order that the said person shall pay a substantial sum of money, whether by way of fine or costs of the contempt proceedings or both, the Court shall fix a period of imprisonment in default of payment within the time allowed;
(i) where the said person is unable to pay the fine or costs within the time allowed, the Court may either extend the time for payment or reduce the fine but not the costs.
Counsel for all parties submitted that when sentencing for a charge of contempt, the court could utilise the options provided by the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA). It was submitted that the approach of Bleby J in Registrar of the Supreme Court v Zappia (No 2)[4] was correct. There Bleby J concluded that the provisions of the Sentencing Act applied and that the court could proceed without recording a conviction. In reaching this conclusion Bleby J rejected dicta in the Full Court decision of Nicholls v Director of Public Prosecutions.[5]
[4] (2003) 86 SASR 410. This judgment is subject to an appeal to the Full Court. The hearing has not yet taken place.
[5] (1993) 61 SASR 31
Conclusions as to Penalty
In Registrar of the Court of Appeal v Maniam (No 2) the applicability of the Sentencing Act 1989 (NSW) was not in issue, but Kirby P, with whom Hope A-JA agreed, said: [6]
A conviction of contempt of court is a conviction of an offence, criminal in nature. Punishment of the convicted contemnor must therefore take into account the considerations normally applicable to the punishment of crime and apt to uphold the purpose of this jurisdiction, viz, the undisturbed and orderly administration of justice in the courts according to law. Thus, in determining the punishment which is apt to the circumstances which have led to a conviction of contempt, it is appropriate to bear in mind the purposes of punishing the contemnor; deterring the contemnor and others in the future from committing like contempts; and denouncing the conduct concerned in an approximately emphatic way.
[6] (1992) 26 NSWLR 309 at 314
It is appropriate to proceed on the basis that the court has the power to proceed without recording a conviction. This discretion arises in circumstances of ‘good cause’. Such circumstances do not exist in the case of the present defendants. Although unintentional, the contempts were serious and had the tendency to interfere substantially in the administration of justice. The discretion to proceed without conviction should not be exercised with respect to any of the defendants.
In Registrar of the Supreme Court v The Advertiser[7] the court had regard to the intention of the party who perpetrated the contempt and its antecedents. The court gave consideration to the party’s expressions of contrition, its attitude towards its responsibilities to the administration of justice, the circumstances of the publication and the gravity of the contempt. In the Registrar of the Supreme Court v Channel 9 SA Pty Ltd[8] the court adopted a similar approach. Intention, systems to avoid contempt, public interest and gravity were all considered relevant to the fixing of a penalty for contempt.
[7] (Bollen J, 17 May 1996, unreported)
[8] (2001) 212 LSJS 90
It is to be accepted that in the decades of publishing each defendant has maintained a relatively unblemished record for offences of this nature. They have all now acted to put in place systems to reduce the risk of further offences of this type.
Having regard to all the circumstances it is appropriate to record a conviction against each defendant and to impose a fine. In fixing the amount of each fine, it is important that particular regard be had to the consideration of general deterrence. Strict compliance with orders of the type made in the present case are critical to the proper administration of justice.
There are differences between the positions of each defendant. The Herald and Weekly Times Limited contested the charge. Nationwide News Limited had a much wider South Australian circulation than the other defendants and The Age Company Limited’s new systems appear to be less rigorous than those developed by the other defendants.
A fine of $30,000.00 would have been imposed on Nationwide News Ltd and The Age Company Limited. However having regard to the prompt pleas of guilty and their evident contrition, fines of $22,500.00 are imposed. In the case of The Herald and Weekly Times Ltd a fine of $30,000.00 would have been imposed. However having regard to its evident contrition and prompt apology, a fine of $25,000.00 is imposed.
The orders of the court are as follows:
-Nationwide News Ltd is convicted of the offence of contempt and fined $22,500.00.
-The Age Company Limited is convicted of the offence of contempt and fined $22,500.00.
-The Herald and Weekly Times Ltd is convicted of the offence of contempt and fined $25,000.00.
6
1