REGISTRAR OF THE COURT OF APPEAL v JOHN FAIRFAX GROUP PTY LTD [1993] NSWCA 229

REGISTRAR OF THE COURT OF APPEAL v JOHN FAIRFAX GROUP PTY LTD [1993] NSWCA 229

Fairfax published during a criminal trial an article attacking a defence witness's credibility, creating a serious risk to the fairness of the trial, and its liability arose from inadequate control systems. Miss Jones, as author and with knowledge the trial was ongoing and publication imminent, 'caused' the publication in the requisite sense. Both were found to be in contempt – except for Priestley JA who dissented regarding Miss Jones, holding her intent was only conditional upon legal vetting and thus the charge was not proved against her.

Parties
Claimant: Registrar of the Court of Appeal; First Opponent Publisher: John Fairfax Group Pty Ltd; Second Opponent Journalist: Cindy Louise Jones
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 April 1993
Procedural Posture
Contempt of Court Proceedings / Judgment and Orders
Outcome
First opponent and second opponent found guilty of contempt (dissent as to second opponent); penalties imposed; orders for costs made.
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Fair Trial, Publication During Criminal Trial, Liability of Publishers and Journalists
Criminal Law Media Law Procedure Contempt of Court Fair Trial Publication During Criminal Trial Liability of Publishers and Journalists

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 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Registrar of the Court of Appeal

Claimant

John Fairfax Group Pty Ltd

First Opponent Publisher

Cindy Louise Jones

Second Opponent Journalist

Procedural Posture

Contempt of Court Proceedings / Judgment and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether publication of an article likely to interfere with a criminal trial constitutes contempt of court
  2. 2 Liability of publisher for contempt
  3. 3 Liability of journalist for contempt

Ratio Decidendi

Fairfax published during a criminal trial an article attacking a defence witness's credibility, creating a serious risk to the fairness of the trial, and its liability arose from inadequate control systems. Miss Jones, as author and with knowledge the trial was ongoing and publication imminent, 'caused' the publication in the requisite sense. Both were found to be in contempt – except for Priestley JA who dissented regarding Miss Jones, holding her intent was only conditional upon legal vetting and thus the charge was not proved against her.

Court Disposition

First opponent and second opponent found guilty of contempt (dissent as to second opponent); penalties imposed; orders for costs made.

Orders

  • Declaration that Fairfax is guilty of contempt of court for publication likely to interfere with justice in Meissner trial.
  • Declaration that Cindy Louise Jones is guilty of contempt of court for causing publication (with dissent from Priestley JA).