earlier this year to breaching a suppression order over the news reports they published in December 2018, in the days after a County Court jury found Cardinal Pell guilty.The reports did not name Cardinal Pell or detail his charges but referred to a high-profile person being found guilty of serious charges, when the cardinal was still awaiting another trial. That second trial was later aborted by prosecutors.last year following a successful appeal to the High Court.
Supreme Court Justice John Dixon said on Friday some media companies took a “calculated risk” in publishing reports they ought to have known breached the suppression order, and that their breaches diminished the order’s “purpose and efficacy”. “In doing so, the media respondents usurped the function of the court in protecting the proper administration of justice and took it upon themselves to determine where the balance lay between Pell’s right to a fair second trial ... and the public’s right to know what happened in the [first] trial,” Justice Dixon said.
PCKJ3627 acooperjourno If they can afford it, good, Pell is disgusting
acooperjourno Good, these media circuses need to be put in their place as they get way too complacent.
acooperjourno Grubs.
acooperjourno kuku27 Law breaking attracts penalty but if it happened in India , anything about state , media house would be pulled down under existing situation
acooperjourno Petty cash aka. chump change
Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: smh - 🏆 6. / 80 Read more »