DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS FOR THE COMMONWEALTH v UNITED TELECASTERS SYDNEY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) [1992] NSWCA 57
The broadcast in question, despite modifications, was during the currency of the trial and showed sufficient identifiers so that it had a real, substantial, and serious tendency to interfere with the due course of justice in the trial of Mr Hardy, thus establishing contempt of court.
- Parties
- Claimant: Director of Public Prosecutions for the Commonwealth; Opponent: United Telecasters Sydney Ltd (In Liquidation)
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 28 February 1992
- Procedural Posture
- Contempt Proceedings / Judgment on Liability and Penalty
- Outcome
- Opponent found guilty of contempt; fine imposed.
- Legal Topics
- Contempt of Court, Prejudicial Publicity, Criminal Trial Procedure, Freedom of Expression
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Director of Public Prosecutions for the Commonwealth
Claimant
United Telecasters Sydney Ltd (In Liquidation)
Opponent
Procedural Posture
Contempt Proceedings / Judgment on Liability and Penalty
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the broadcast by United Telecasters Sydney Ltd (In Liquidation) on 18 September 1989 constituted contempt of court by having a real tendency, as a matter of practical reality, to interfere with the due course of justice in the trial of Leslie Thomas Hardy
Ratio Decidendi
The broadcast in question, despite modifications, was during the currency of the trial and showed sufficient identifiers so that it had a real, substantial, and serious tendency to interfere with the due course of justice in the trial of Mr Hardy, thus establishing contempt of court.
Court Disposition
Opponent found guilty of contempt; fine imposed.
Orders
- Declaration that United Telecasters Sydney Ltd (In Liquidation) is guilty of contempt of court in relation to the 18 September 1989 broadcast of 'Marriage Rackets' on Channel 10 television station.
- Opponent fined $20,000 for contempt of court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment