Packer v Peacock [1912] HCA 8

Packer v Peacock [1912] HCA 8

The Supreme Court of Victoria had jurisdiction, prior to committal, over contemptuous publications likely to prejudice a fair trial for a crime triable only in that court. Publication of detailed allegations and comment on the purported facts of the charge, as opposed to neutral reporting of court proceedings, was likely to endanger the accused’s right to a fair trial and thus was rightly punished as contempt of court.

Parties
Appellant: John William Packer; Respondent: Samuel Peacock; Appellant: Henry Burrell; Appellant: Thomas Smart; Appellant: J. E. Davidson
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 March 1912
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of Victoria
Outcome
appeals dismissed in all cases; penalties on Burrell and Smart reduced; costs to be paid by appellants
Legal Topics
Publication of Prejudicial Material, Jurisdiction of Superior Courts, Fair Trial Rights
Contempt of Court Criminal Law Media Law Publication of Prejudicial Material Jurisdiction of Superior Courts Fair Trial Rights

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 31 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John William Packer

Appellant

Samuel Peacock

Respondent

Henry Burrell

Appellant

Thomas Smart

Appellant

J. E. Davidson

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of Victoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court of Victoria had jurisdiction to punish for contempt relating to a criminal charge prior to committal for trial
  2. 2 To what extent publication of material relating to a pending criminal charge is lawful

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Victoria had jurisdiction, prior to committal, over contemptuous publications likely to prejudice a fair trial for a crime triable only in that court. Publication of detailed allegations and comment on the purported facts of the charge, as opposed to neutral reporting of court proceedings, was likely to endanger the accused’s right to a fair trial and thus was rightly punished as contempt of court.

Court Disposition

appeals dismissed in all cases; penalties on Burrell and Smart reduced; costs to be paid by appellants

Orders

  • Penalties on publisher of the Argus reduced to £50
  • Penalties on publisher of the Herald reduced to £100