RESOLUTE LTD & ANOR -v- WARNES [2001] WASCA 4
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2001] WASCA 4 | |
| THE FULL COURT (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CIV:1369/2000 | 17 JANUARY 2001 | |
| Coram: | KENNEDY J IPP J MILLER J | 17/01/01 | |
| 5 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Respondent sentenced to 3 months' imprisonment for each contempt, suspended for a period of 2 years Sentences to be served concurrently, but cumulatively on sentence imposed on 28 August 2000 | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | RESOLUTE LTD (ACN 009 069 014) MICHAEL JOSEPH CARRICK MARK BRADLEY WARNES |
Catchwords: | Contempt Interference with course of justice and administration of law Publication offensively critical of party defending proceedings Pending defamation proceedings Practical reality of publication Right to ventilate matters of public interest Punishment Powers of court to punish Power to impose suspended sentence of imprisonment |
Legislation: | Rules of the Supreme Court 1971, O 55 r 7 Sentencing Act 1995, s 3(3) |
Case References: | AMIEU v Mudginberri Station Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 98 Harkianakis v Skalkos (1997) 42 NSWLR 22 Harris v Muirhead (1993) 2 Qd R 527 Morris v Crown Office [1970] 2 QB 114 R v Pearce (1992) 7 WAR 395 Resolute Ltd & Anor v Warnes [2000] WASCA 359 Attorney General for the State of New South Wales v Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd & John Laws [1998] NSWSC 28 Clarkson v The Mandarin Club [1998] 1685 FCA Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Hickey [1999] FCA 259 Harman v Home Department State Secretary [1983] 1 AC 280 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : RESOLUTE LTD & ANOR -v- WARNES [2001] WASCA 4 CORAM : KENNEDY J
- IPP J
MILLER J
- First Applicant
MICHAEL JOSEPH CARRICK
Second Applicant
AND
MARK BRADLEY WARNES
Respondent/Contemnor
Catchwords:
Contempt - Interference with course of justice and administration of law - Publication offensively critical of party defending proceedings - Pending defamation proceedings - Practical reality of publication - Right to ventilate matters of public interest - Punishment - Powers of court to punish - Power to impose suspended sentence of imprisonment
Legislation:
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971, O 55 r 7
(Page 2)
Sentencing Act 1995, s 3(3)
Result:
Respondent sentenced to 3 months' imprisonment for each contempt, suspended for a period of 2 years
Sentences to be served concurrently, but cumulatively on sentence imposed on 28 August 2000
Representation:
Counsel:
First Applicant : Mr M L Bennett
Second Applicant : Mr M L Bennett
Respondent/Contemnor : In person
Solicitors:
First Applicant : Bennett & Co
Second Applicant : Bennett & Co
Respondent/Contemnor : In person
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
AMIEU v Mudginberri Station Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 98
Harkianakis v Skalkos (1997) 42 NSWLR 22
Harris v Muirhead [1993] 2 Qd R 527
Morris v…
Continue reading Resolute Ltd v Warnes
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Resolute Ltd v Warnes [2001] WASCA 4
- Case
- [2001] WASCA 4
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Resolute Ltd brought a case against Warnes in the Federal Court, objecting to Warnes' publication of material that was considered critically offensive towards Resolute Ltd, which was a party in pending defamation proceedings. The publication in question was seen as an interference with the course of justice and the administration of law. Resolute Ltd sought to address this perceived misconduct, arguing that it not only impeded the ongoing legal process but also posed a threat to the integrity of the judicial system.
The legal issues before the court encompassed the scope and limits of the right to ventilate matters of public interest, the extent of contempt in relation to publications that are critically offensive towards a party in pending proceedings, and the appropriateness of punishment, particularly in the form of a suspended sentence of imprisonment. The court was tasked with determining whether Warnes' actions constituted contempt of court and, if so, the suitable punishment to be imposed.
In its reasoning, the court recognised the importance of the right to ventilate matters of public interest, acknowledging that such rights are foundational to a democratic society. However, it also emphasised that this right is not absolute and must be balanced against the necessity to maintain the integrity of the judicial process. The court found that Warnes' publication was indeed critically offensive and interfered with the pending defamation proceedings, thereby constituting contempt of court. The court also considered the powers it held to punish such contempt, ultimately deciding that a suspended sentence of imprisonment was an appropriate response. The sentences were to be served concurrently but cumulatively with any sentence Warnes had already received.
The final orders of the court were that Warnes was to be sentenced to three months' imprisonment for each instance of contempt, with these sentences to be suspended for a period of two years. These sentences were to run concurrently, but cumulatively with any other sentence Warnes had received on 28 August 2000.
The legal issues before the court encompassed the scope and limits of the right to ventilate matters of public interest, the extent of contempt in relation to publications that are critically offensive towards a party in pending proceedings, and the appropriateness of punishment, particularly in the form of a suspended sentence of imprisonment. The court was tasked with determining whether Warnes' actions constituted contempt of court and, if so, the suitable punishment to be imposed.
In its reasoning, the court recognised the importance of the right to ventilate matters of public interest, acknowledging that such rights are foundational to a democratic society. However, it also emphasised that this right is not absolute and must be balanced against the necessity to maintain the integrity of the judicial process. The court found that Warnes' publication was indeed critically offensive and interfered with the pending defamation proceedings, thereby constituting contempt of court. The court also considered the powers it held to punish such contempt, ultimately deciding that a suspended sentence of imprisonment was an appropriate response. The sentences were to be served concurrently but cumulatively with any sentence Warnes had already received.
The final orders of the court were that Warnes was to be sentenced to three months' imprisonment for each instance of contempt, with these sentences to be suspended for a period of two years. These sentences were to run concurrently, but cumulatively with any other sentence Warnes had received on 28 August 2000.
Orders
Orders of the court
Respondent sentenced to 3 months' imprisonment for each contempt, suspended for a period of 2 years
Sentences to be served concurrently, but cumulatively on sentence imposed on 28 August 2000
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.