A journalist’s duty to the public interest
As a journalist, you have a duty to the public interest. You’re the gateway between the audience and their access to information on the issues that concern them. Providing public service and following public interest while following the code of ethics and law can be a crucial and delicate enterprise.
We see examples in the news of the balancing act gone wrong- media professionals and journalists slipping information that in hindsight, they shouldn’t have. These cases spark debate into how much freedom a journalist has to address the needs of public interest and what the consequences should be for those who push it too far. A recent example of this involves the Cardinal Pell trials into child sexual abuse. Before we dive into the topic of Pell let’s look at court reporting in Australia to provide background information.
Court Reporting and the Law
Contempt– it’s your number one legal priority when you report on court proceedings. The way you behave as a journalist in the courtroom will affect your credibility and reputation in the media world. Your credibility is one of your most important assets as a journalist. Just as journalists need credibility to effectively carry out their work, as do judges and the legal system they operate within. Contempt of court law is enforced to maintain the integrity of this legal system. By definition, contempt is to show disregard to something. Contempt in a legal sense disrupts the ability of a court to ensure proper procedure to reach just verdicts. When contempt is shown towards a court it may have the perceived effect of scandalising the court, which basically means it can create a negative impact on the court’s reputation. The reputation of a court and the judges within that system is important in upholding the law. Moreover, laws are vital to maintaining social order.
With that broad understanding of how courts work in Australia, let’s look at the recent Cardinal Pell saga and see how it unfolded for the journos that reported on it to examine the difficulties these legalities pose for journalists.
The Cardinal Pell case
It’s 2018 and the Vatican’s third most senior official is convicted of child sexual abuse against two boys committed in the 90s. His sentence for the crime is six years imprisonment. The case is groundbreaking- Cardinal George Pell would be the highest-ranking member of the Catholic Church to ever be sentenced for crimes of this nature. News outlets worldwide sprung on the story but for Australian media outlets, the news was off-limits.
Pell facing court, 2018
So, why were media sources in other countries allowed to publish the news when Australian outlets couldn’t? Technically the international media wasn’t allowed to publish the material either. The news was banned from circulation because of a suppression order released by the courts at the beginning of the trial.
The purpose of suppression orders and how it relates to contempt
As with any issue regarding contempt of court, a suppression order is enacted to ensure the court system can maintain the process of justice. They are instated at the beginning of court proceedings.
In the case of Cardinal Pell, the suppression was ordered because Pell faced trial for two separate cases. Reporting of the first case could be seen as impacting the court proceedings and the jury of the second case when it went to trial. It’s generally acknowledged that media coverage would inhibit a fair trial. If a fair trial can’t be guaranteed, Pell’s second case and the outcome from that would be contentious. Media influence in the entirety of the trial has been debated and it’s important to note that the Pell case has now been appealed by the High Court where it was ruled that there was not enough evidence to solidify the guilty verdict reached by the jury. The second set of charges were later dropped and subsequently, there was no second trial and the suppression orders were lifted in February 2019.
On another level, it’s a pillar of the Australian legal system to prescribe to an open justice system. Open justice is a principle that disqualifies the court from excluding the public. It’s required of a court before imposing suppression orders to take into consideration that open justice is fundamental to the oversight of justice in court proceedings and to maintain public interest. In essence, the point of suppression orders is to ensure fair play during a trial to serve justice. Justice is considered to be in the public interest. So we can see that public interest is in both the courts and journalists priorities to safeguard.
In regards to the Pell case, international publications were able to release the news and avoided facing legal action because they were outside the jurisdiction of the Australian legal system. Australian media, however, was not and there were media figures and publications within this sphere that expressed their opposition.
Media under heat
Suppression orders aren’t uncommon and are generally not newsworthy. The difference in the case of Pell is the demand for the story due to its sensitive nature and the high-profile figure involved. The mix of this and the publication of the story overseas left Australian media publications unable to ignore the story. The response from Chief Judge Peter Kidd of the Victorian Supreme Court who initially imposed the suppression order was immediate. Kidd stated that the reporting raised alarms over a potential breach of the suppression order in “the most egregious way possible”. He continued to say “… given how potentially egregious and flagrant these breaches are, a number of very important people in the media are facing, if found guilty, the prospect of …substantial imprisonment”.
The statement preceded a series of court summons for those involved.
Among those facing charges were highly regarded and popular media outlets including the Herald Sun and The Daily Telegraph for their coverage and front-page spread.
Daily Telegraph and the Herald Sun in legal strife over controversial front pages breaching court suppression orders Media personalities including Nine’s Deborah Knight along with 2GB host Ray Hadley who was quoted on his show as saying:
“…last thing I wanna do is spend Christmas in jail, so I won’t be in contempt of the court but I will say this… everyone will know about it, despite the orders that are in place. And it seems rather stupid that we can’t talk about it given that everyone on the planet knows what it is”
also faced court summons.
Pictured left to right: Deborah Knight and Ray Hadley
In April 2019 thirteen media outlets and twenty-three journalists stood trial for coverage regarding the Pell case. Their charge was contempt under the pretence of breaking suppression orders and scandalising the court through the leaking of information and criticisms of the suppression orders. Furthermore, Kidd explains that those at trial “aided and abetted the overseas media’s contempt”
What happens if proven guilty?
The general argument media fought back on the charges was that the coverage was intended for “transparent and open justice”. However, if proven guilty the penalties are uncertain and severe with calls for reform on contempt of court laws from the Law Institue of Victoria stating they are “confusing and ambiguous”.
The appeal for reform goes back to the importance of open justice with the legal body explaining how the laws currently pose a contradiction to free speech and have “a chilling effect on proper public scrutiny and comment on the work of our courts”. The body continued to explain the problem of an individual judge’s discretion in decisions over sentencing where the law stipulates no limitations.
Another factor, in this case, is the context of media in our technologically connected world. International outlets published the news and faced no consequences from Australian courts because they were out of their jurisdiction. What is the point of a suppression order that can’t be enforced? Only Australian media outlets are able to face any legal consequences. The current laws do not account for this problem and there is faced the frequent problem of laws not keeping up with the developments in technology.
What we learn from the Pell case
The overarching issue is the importance of maintaining the integrity of the legal system in Australia to enforce laws and maintain justice and social order. The Pell case is a didactic tale for journalists and media outlets of how important it is to err on the side of caution when dealing with suppression orders and sensitive information particularly under current laws that have ambiguous penalties.
Featured image sourced: https://emerj.com/ai-sector-overviews/ai-in-law-legal-practice-current-applications/
The Sound of Silence 