George Pell case shows laws of contempt and suppression orders are out of date
The news that George Pell had been found guilty was a bombshell for most Victorians because of a suppression order. Such laws made sense when a paper’s front page was the only real source of news, but we now live in a different world, writes Justin Quill.
Opinion
Don't miss out on the headlines from Opinion. Followed categories will be added to My News.
For most, but not all, Victorians, the news on Tuesday that Cardinal George Pell had been found guilty by a jury of serious sex offences from the mid 1990s — and would almost certainly spend time in jail — was a bombshell.
If you’re one of those Victorians unaware of the verdict, probably just as big a bombshell was the news that this happened on December 11 last year and you’re finding out about it only now.
That’s because of a suppression order granted by the County Court.
BOLT: WHY PELL HAS BEEN FALSELY CONVICTED
WHAT WENT ON INSIDE SECRET PELL CHILD SEX TRIALS
THE RISE AND FALL OF GEORGE PELL
A suppression order is a court order directed to everyone, but particularly the media, prohibiting certain things about cases being published. Such orders can suppress anything from minor details to even the entire existence of the case.
In the Pell case the order was made because there were supposed to be two trials: one trial for the very serious 1990s rape charges on which he was found guilty and the other about offences alleged to have happened in the 1970s.
Two trials means two juries. The County Court decided to suppress the first trial to avoid the second jury being prejudiced against Pell.
When Pell was found guilty the mainstream media wasn’t permitted to tell the Australian public what had happened, while the international media were openly reporting it on the internet where it could be downloaded by Australians.
Then, private Australian citizens took to social media — Facebook and Twitter in particular — to talk about the case and spread the very news that the mainstream media weren’t allowed to — and didn’t — talk about.
The Herald Sun waited until Tuesday to report on this case. International media and some citizens did not.
This is not a criticism of the judge in this case but rather a demonstration that the law has not kept up to date with what technology allows people to do.
The laws of contempt and suppression orders have been around for decades. When the front page of the newspaper was the only real source of news, the law made sense. But we live in a different world and this case demonstrates that.
Justin Quill is a lawyer with Macpherson Kelley, which acts for the Herald Sun.
MORE PELL COVERAGE:
BOLT: WHY PELL HAS BEEN FALSELY CONVICTED
SCANDAL IS NO STRANGER TO THE VATICAN
SEX ABUSE VICTIMS ‘ON HOLD’ FOR COMPO
WHAT PRISON LIFE WILL BE LIKE FOR PELL
HOW PELL’S ATTITUDE SPURRED ON HIS CRITICS
Join the conversation
Human cost of pandemic goes much further than virus
Whether you are pro or anti-lockdown the grim, unintended consequences of the fixation on coronavirus are undeniable, as other diseases — including cancer and heart disease — go unchecked, and despair from joblessness, poverty and financial stress rises, writes Rita Panahi.
Read more
Premier must outline his plan so Melbourne can recover
As the community overwhelmingly complies with the Premier’s stage four restrictions, he must clearly outline his virus strategy so we can make plans to rebuild confidence and employment in our city, which right now is a ghost town, writes Jeff Kennett.
Read more