Australian media organizations fined for contempt of court for breaching gag order over cardinal’s sex abuse charges
June 04, 2021
A dozen Australian news outlets have been fined AU$1.1 million (US$855,000) for 21 counts of contempt of court after flouting a gag order that banned reporting of Cardinal George Pell’s child sex abuse charges in 2018.
The ruling from the Supreme Court of Victoria was made on Friday, ending a court case that was sparked when Australian media outlets violated a suppression order that prohibited the reporting of Cardinal Pell’s charges while the case was ongoing.
The news organizations had previously pleaded guilty in the case, as part of a deal that meant charges levied against 18 journalists and editors were dropped, ensuring the individuals did not face the risk of a prison sentence.
Addressing the ruling, Justice John Dixon accused the news outlets of failing to demonstrate “a significant degree of remorse and contrition,” instead using the deal as a way to protect their reporters from being individually convicted.
Justice Dixon further condemned the news outlets for engaging in “blatant and wilful defiance of the court’s authority” by refusing to obey the rules of the gag order.
They each took a deliberate risk by intentionally advancing a collateral attack on the role of suppression orders and Victoria’s justice system.
Australia’s two largest news outlets, News Corp and Nine Entertainment group, face the brunt of the fines, with the court ordering all of the news outlets found guilty to collectively pay AU$1.1 million (US$855,000), as well as AU$650,000 (US$498,440) in court costs.
Cardinal Pell, who served as the Vatican treasurer, was jailed in December 2018 after a jury found him guilty of sexually abusing two 13-year-old choir boys during his time as Archbishop of Melbourne. The conviction found the religious figure guilty of one count of sexual penetration and four counts of committing indecent acts.
The charges were overturned by the High Court of Australia, with Cardinal Pell having only served one year of his sentence, after the judges ruled the jury did not properly consider all the evidence presented.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
0 Comments