1.0 Introduction
This report investigates the issues of sub judice contempt surrounding the death of an infant while sub judice contempt means the published materials tend to prejudice a fair trial (Pearson & Polden, 2015).
2.0 The limits on publishing about a matter still before the courts
The court considers several relevant factors in determining whether there is any tendency on prejudice, such as the eminence of the broadcasted and printed item and the images accompanying it (Pearson & Polden, 2015). The court is concerned such materials will influence the witnesses to give unbiased testimonies and jurors’ ability to give a fair judgement. Besides, there are different restrictions to the published materials at different proceedings. For example, the journalists are restricted to reporting the crime’s ‘bare facts’ after the defendants have been arrested or charged but before they appear in court. The points below show how the publication runs the risk of committing the sub judice contempt in the Smithrust case:
– On 17 May 2016, the full name, occupation and the workplace of both defendants are published in a news story. Before the trial, any information that may lead to prejudice cannot be published (Pearson & Polden, 2015).
– The appearance of both male and female defendant is published in a news story on 17 May 2016 and 27 May 2016 respectively. This may cause prejudice which may affect defendants’ integrity and their reputation towards the public (Pearson & Polden, 2015).
– The previous criminal record of the male defendant is disclosed in the news and published on 17 May 2016. This may influence the fairness of the proceeding (Pearson & Polden, 2015).
3.0 The limits on publishing about a matter involving children
When reporting cases involving juveniles, any ID information about child victims cannot be published (Pearson, 2014). Besides, “no ID of children subject to allegations of harm or risk of harm or in state custody or guardianship” (Pearson, 2014, p.1). According to Breit (2011), under the legislation, the child victim must not be identified. Besides there are restrictions on identifying investigation (Breit, 2011). These rules are used to protect the privacy of children. Hence, none of their detailed information should be published in any news stories. The points below show how the publication publishes a child victim ID which runs the risk of committing the sub judice contempt in the Smithrust case:
– The child victim’s name and ID info were published on 17 May 2016.
– The child victim’s photo was posted in the news on 17 May 2016.
It is because Pearson and Polden (2015) states that under Queensland’s Child Protection Act 1999, any details that can identify a child victim cannot be mentioned and published.
4.0 The limits on publishing about children within the child protection system
Under the Child Protection Act 1999, child in need of protection means a child who has suffered harm, is still suffering harm, or is at unacceptable risk of suffering from harm, and does not have a parent able and willing to protect the child from the harm (Apelt, 2017).
The Royal Commission releases most information about its work, ranging from legal issues to operational issues (Royal Commission, 2017). Any ongoing investigations of individuals or institutions will not be confirmed by the Royal Commission (Royal Commission, 2017). The Royal Commission has the power to refer matters to other authorities such as state child protection departments. However, after the matters being referred to other authorities, the Royal Commission cannot confirm anything.
For the journalists, who are willing to report the matters given by the child protection departments or Royal Commission, they should be reporting in a sensitive and ethical way. Besides, the Royal Commission requests contact details of any support services should be included in media reports such as Lifeline.
5.0 The limits on publishing about a matter subject to a coronial inquiry
At different jurisdiction, there are different legal restrictions on the media in reporting coronal inquest proceedings. In Queensland, these restrictions include: Under the Magistrates Court Act, “pearsons breaching coronial orders may be held in contempt of court under and face up to 3 years” (Hunter Institute, 2017), a coroner may impose conditions when necessary to protect the interests of justice, the public or persons and disclosure for genuine research purposes is exempted. The Hunter Institute (2017) also shows that a coroner may refuse disclosure where it is not relevant to public interest. Hence, reading the restrictions before publishing any information is important. The following sentence is found in the news published on 17 July 2017, which cause the journalist to be facing sub judice contempt because of defamation.
“He cited systemic failures in the child protection system which allowed the Smithurst case to slip through the cracks.”
6.0 The limits on publishing about a matter the subject of a report by the Queensland Family and Child Commission
According to Queensland Family and Child Commission (2014, p.19), “The principal commissioner must not include in a report any comments adverse to an entity identifiable from the report, unless the entity has been given a copy of the comments and a reasonable opportunity to respond to them”. Hence, any journalists writing about any commissions’ words must be careful, as that may cause them facing sub judice contempt because of defamation. The disclosed information in a report may negatively influence the outcome of an investigation or an inquiry by the Queensland Police Service or a complaints entity or an investigatory body established under a law of the Commonwealth (Queensland Family and Child Commission, 2014). The points below show how the publication runs the risk of committing the sub judice contempt in the Smithrust case:
– The name of those three arrested officers were posted in a news on 2 November 2016
– The Facebook feed posted by one of the arrested officer was posted in a news on 2 November 2016.
It is because Pearson and Polden (2015) states that the names of any police officers of authorities’ officers cannot be mentioned in a report (Pearson & Polden, 2015).
7.0 Discussion of the matter in the Parliament of Queensland and any media releases and social media posts by the Minister, and the LNP Opposition
There are few main points that the journals should be aware of, they are: according to Laurie (2004), it states that the House has the right to legislate and consider on any matter in terms of sub judice rule. Besides, it also says the sub judice rule does not apply to any proceedings of tribunals, royal commissions or similar commissions (Laurie, 2004).
In Smithrust, how the reporter reports the Parliament of Queensland and any media releases and social media posts by the Minister, and the LNP Opposition may be charged with sub judice contempt, because of the following points:
– A sentence of “gross failure to protect the children of Queensland” was quoted in the news on 31 October 2016. However, none of the words said in the parliament should be put in a news story (Laurie, 2004).
– The reporter reported what Betty Horsephut said and how she encouraged all concerned citizens to register a protest the Minister on social media with a special hashtag. It is concerns as sub judice because the reporter seems like helping the one to promote what they think in the news, and this will affect how people judge a litigation.
– The reporter told the public that the Minister defended the redated report.
8.0 Conclusion
Getting much information published on the news story and spread throughout the world has many benefits. However, some written materials may cause the journalists commit in sub judice contempt. Hence, it is suggested that checking all the restrictions before writing a news story can help you to run away from being sued.
...(download the rest of the essay above)