Kazal v Thunder Studios Inc (California) [2017] FCAFC 111

Kazal v Thunder Studios Inc (California) [2017] FCAFC 111

Four convictions for contempt of court—breach of consent orders by publishing or directing readers to prohibited material via vans and tweets, and improper pressure on party to proceedings—were upheld; convictions and sentences on two charges concerning video content were quashed due to insufficient evidence of control/capacity. Sentences for remaining convictions were varied and resentenced to reflect removal of irrelevant considerations and fresh exercise of discretion, resulting in a total of 15 months imprisonment. Indemnity costs awarded against appellant.

Parties
Appellant: Adam Kazal; First Respondent: Thunder Studios Inc (California); Second Respondent: Rodric David
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Convictions and Sentences for Contempt of Court
Outcome
Partially allowed; convictions and sentences on charges 6 and 7 quashed, convictions on charges 3, 5, 8, and 9 upheld and resentenced; balance of appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Civil Contempt, Criminal Contempt, Breach of Court Orders, Improper Pressure on Party, Administration of Justice, Publication Orders, Interference With Justice, Sentencing Principles for Contempt, Costs in Contempt Cases
Contempt of Court Civil Contempt Criminal Contempt Breach of Court Orders Improper Pressure on Party Administration of Justice Publication Orders Interference With Justice +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 29 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adam Kazal

Appellant

Thunder Studios Inc (California)

First Respondent

Rodric David

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Convictions and Sentences for Contempt of Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether convictions for contempt should be upheld
  2. 2 Proper construction and scope of consent orders
  3. 3 Meaning of 'publishing' in Court orders

Ratio Decidendi

Four convictions for contempt of court—breach of consent orders by publishing or directing readers to prohibited material via vans and tweets, and improper pressure on party to proceedings—were upheld; convictions and sentences on two charges concerning video content were quashed due to insufficient evidence of control/capacity. Sentences for remaining convictions were varied and resentenced to reflect removal of irrelevant considerations and fresh exercise of discretion, resulting in a total of 15 months imprisonment. Indemnity costs awarded against appellant.

Court Disposition

Partially allowed; convictions and sentences on charges 6 and 7 quashed, convictions on charges 3, 5, 8, and 9 upheld and resentenced; balance of appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Convictions on charges 6 and 7 quashed and dismissed.
  • Sentences for charges 3, 5, 8, and 9 set aside and resentenced: charge 3—9 months imprisonment from 27 Feb 2017 to 26 Nov 2017; charge 5—6 months concurrent with charge 3; charge 8—6 months beginning 27 May 2017 to 26 Nov 2017 cumulative as to 3 months; charge 9—12 months imprisonment from 27 May 2017 to 26 May 2018...