‘No reasonable prospects of conviction’ for Kyle Sandilands and Jackie O over mushroom trial comments, OPP finds
The Office of Public Prosecutions has made a ruling on shock jocks Kyle Sandilands and Jackie O after their controversial on-air commentary during Erin Patterson’s trial.
Shock jocks Kyle and Jackie O will not be prosecuted for contempt after running a live commentary during the Erin Patterson trial and declaring that authorities should “just lock that bitch up”.
In a statement on Wednesday afternoon, a spokeswoman from the Office of Public Prosecutions said it considered there were “no reasonable prospects of conviction”.
She said two other incidents “involving publication of potentially prejudicial material”, namely a Mamamia Out Loud podcast episode and a presentation titled “The Psychology of Serial Killers” by Dr Rachel Toles, also did not meet the threshold for prosecution.
“The relevant circumstances of each incident have been carefully considered and assessed against the principles of sub-judice contempt,” the spokeswoman said.
“It has been determined that in all the circumstances none of the incidents had a clear tendency, as a matter of practical reality, to prejudice the fair trial of Ms Patterson on the charges against her.
“It is considered that the required elements of contempt could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt and there are no reasonable prospects of conviction for the referred incidents.”
Kyle Sandilands and Jackie O discussed the high-profile trial on their controversial radio show on June 16, weeks before Patterson was found guilty of triple murder and attempted murder.
The Herald Sun obtained the audio before it was taken down by publisher ARN, who broadcasts the Melbourne radio station KIIS 101.1.
In the audio, Sandilands started speaking about the trial after a newsreader provided an update on the case.
“Did she do it or what?” he asked, calling her a “big lump” and “miserable-looking thing”.
Co-host Jackie Henderson chimed in: “Yeah, like what does the evidence point to? Okay, my question is, how strong is her case?”
Sandilands replied: “Not strong, not strong for her.”
The newsreader tried to wrangle the Sydney-based duo, reiterating that Patterson had denied deliberately poisoning her guests and that “we have to wait for the jury to make a decision”.
“But the rest of us already know, yeah, you f--k (bleep) come on, bro. You can tell by looking at her, just lock that bitch up (bleep) (bleep) (bleep),” Sandilands said.
“Takes too long. These courts should be in and out, decided and moved on.”
Henderson added: “Well, until it’s your turn one day, where you’re accused, right?”
Sandilands asked: “What am I going to get accused of?”
Hours later, Justice Christopher Beale raised the matter with the prosecution and defence teams in a Morwell courtroom in the absence of the jury.
“I encourage all commentators to engage their brains before they open their mouths, as they may otherwise land themselves and their organisations in hot water,” he said.
“I will be referring this morning’s matter to the Office of Public Prosecutions for contempt proceedings.
“Our media unit will continue to closely monitor all media in relation to commentary on this case, whether the commentary be shock jocks, so-called influencers, social media commentators or legacy media.”
Sub judice contempt protects an accused’s right to a fair trial by preventing the media and others from publishing information that has a “real and definite tendency” to prejudice the trial.
Earlier, on June 5, Mamamia Out Loud also landed itself in hot water for publishing an episode that speculated about Patterson’s decision to testify in her own murder trial.
“Legal experts would say that she would probably be advised not to (give evidence). It is rare for a defendant to take the stand,” one host said.
“And when you put yourself on the stand like that, a poor performance or, you know, appearing nervous or whatever it is, it can really harm the case.
“And the thing is, you can get cross-examined. That puts you in a very, very vulnerable position.”
The podcast then discussed “alleged” female perpetrators and a “woman’s method” of poisoning, telling their listeners the Patterson case was almost “Shakespearean”.
“I think as well that in cases of women who have allegedly committed murder, it’s often not premeditated. So it’s the premeditated, it’s the planning that’s being alleged that a lot of people are looking at that they’re going: ‘Oh, this is kind of so, so unusual’,” one host said.
“I think the reason that it’s traditionally a woman’s method in inverted commas, in popular culture and literature and everything is because women make the food and serve the food, right?”
Later that day, Justice Beale told the parties he would consider proceedings against Mamamia for sub judice contempt “at a more convenient time”.
“The discussion was full of highly prejudicial expressions of opinion. I won’t repeat them here,” he said.
“After being directed to remove the podcast, it has been taken down.
“I remind media and podcasters that ignorance of the law is no excuse, and I remind them that the court’s media team will continue to monitor coverage of this trial to safeguard the trial’s integrity.”
Dr Toles, a renowned clinical psychologist and “criminal expert”, also featured Patterson during a live show in Melbourne.
It is understood she told the crowd of hundreds she believed Patterson was guilty weeks before a verdict was handed down by the jury.
Originally published as ‘No reasonable prospects of conviction’ for Kyle Sandilands and Jackie O over mushroom trial comments, OPP finds
