ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR NEW SOUTH WALES v AMALGAMATED TELEVISION SERVICES PTY LIMITED [1990] NSWCA 9

ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR NEW SOUTH WALES v AMALGAMATED TELEVISION SERVICES PTY LIMITED [1990] NSWCA 9

The broadcast constituted a grave contempt of court: by directly broadcasting the accused’s confession and images of him in incriminating circumstances, the respondent’s actions created a clear and real risk of prejudicing the fair trial of the accused and undermining the administration of justice. Aggravated circumstances included the public statement and demonstration of confession and interview with the accused in custody. The media’s competitive deadline pressures cannot excuse conduct amounting to criminal contempt; a substantial fine is required to deter similar conduct and uphold trial by court, not by media.

Parties
Claimant: Attorney General for New South Wales; Opponent: Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 October 1990
Procedural Posture
Contempt of Court (criminal Contempt) / Penalty Determination After Admission of Contempt
Outcome
Declarations of contempt made and fine imposed.
Legal Topics
Criminal Contempt, Interference With Administration of Justice, Broadcast Media and Fair Trial, Penalties for Contempt
Criminal Law Media Law Contempt of Court Criminal Contempt Interference With Administration of Justice Broadcast Media and Fair Trial Penalties for Contempt

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney General for New South Wales

Claimant

Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited

Opponent

Procedural Posture

Contempt of Court (criminal Contempt) / Penalty Determination After Admission of Contempt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the broadcast constituted criminal contempt of court by interfering with the due course of justice in the trial of Paul Gerald Mason
  2. 2 Determination of the appropriate penalty for contempt in the circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The broadcast constituted a grave contempt of court: by directly broadcasting the accused’s confession and images of him in incriminating circumstances, the respondent’s actions created a clear and real risk of prejudicing the fair trial of the accused and undermining the administration of justice. Aggravated circumstances included the public statement and demonstration of confession and interview with the accused in custody. The media’s competitive deadline pressures cannot excuse conduct amounting to criminal contempt; a substantial fine is required to deter similar conduct and uphold trial by court, not by media.

Court Disposition

Declarations of contempt made and fine imposed.

Orders

  • Declare the Opponent guilty of contempt of court for broadcasting on 30 July 1989 matter likely to interfere with the administration of justice in connection with the trial of Paul Gerald Mason.
  • Declare the Opponent guilty of contempt of court for providing the said matter to Prime Television (Southern) Pty Limited, knowing it would be likely broadcast as it was on 30 July 1989.