7NEWS fined $100,000 for contempt after causing mistrial

7NEWS has received a hefty penalty for “sensationalist” reporting that resulted in a mistrial – with a judge hoping to highlight the seriousness of such offending.

Seven News has been ordered to pay a $100,000 fine for causing a mistrial with “sensationalist” reporting – with a judge hoping to highlight the seriousness of such offending and minimise future cases.

Legal representatives for Seven appeared in the District Court on Tuesday in front of Judge Rauf Soulio after earlier admitting it committed a contempt of court through a story broadcast in early 2023.

Judge Soulio acknowledged the company’s breach of “the golden rule” of court reporting – never report on what hasn’t been presented to the jury – was “wilful” but “without intention”.

“I indicate at the outset that I find that – within the meaning of the authorities – the contempt was a wilful contempt,” he said.

“But, I accept that it was a contempt without any intention of interfering or obstructing the course of justice.

“It appears that there was not a sufficient appreciation in the manner in which the story was constructed of the potential to interfere with the course of justice. As I’ve said, I accept that was not deliberate – however, it was incumbent upon the respondent (Seven News) to have a regard to that prospect and to take steps to avoid that possibility.

“There is a need – an important aspect of a charge of this nature – to deter and reflect to others the seriousness with which such conduct is regarded and the importance of compliance with obligations.”

Under state law, a contempt of court is considered to be a failure to obey a judge or magistrate’s orders, or an act which shows a disregard for their authority. It is punishable by a fine or imprisonment, and the penalty is said to be “at large” meaning it is set by the judge presiding over the case.

In September 2023, the Registrar of the District Court alleged Seven had committed a contempt of court in its coverage on the third day of a scheduled six-day trial.

The Registrar further alleged Seven had linked an accused man’s rape trial – which was in progress before a jury – with other charges he had once faced, but had since been dropped by prosecutors. The dropped charges had never been presented as evidence to the jury and were therefore deemed prejudicial, resulting in the mistrial.

The live broadcast commenced by saying: “Seven News can tonight reveal bombshell sex crime charges against a man previously accused of a notorious city gang rape”.

Seven’s legal representatives appeared in the District Court on Tuesday. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Naomi Jellicoe

Judge Soulio noted there were attempts made by Seven to pixelate the accused man’s face in the broadcast, but acknowledged it was “possible” for the jury to identify him by his distinct clothing, legal representative and the fact it was the only rape trial proceeding in court at the time.

“The applicant submitted that the respondent knew there was potential for the news story to interfere with the trial and that it had to take some steps to avoid that – evidenced by what were described as ‘inadequate pixelation efforts’,” Judge Soulio said.

“However, it was put – and I accept – that the respondent took a calculated risk.

“Counsel submitted that it was to sensationalise reporting of a trial that was – at least on the basis of the respondent’s report – likely of little-to-no interest to viewers unless linked to the more controversial earlier gang rape.”

A Channel Seven spokesperson said the network took its broadcast responsibilities seriously and accepted the court’s finding.

“Seven News endeavours to take every step to ensure its reporting is fair, appropriate and meets the high standards it has set over many years. Seven News will continue to work hard to tell South Australia’s stories and bring news to our audience that is relevant and informative.”