‘Bazooka-sized hole’ in George Pell contempt case

Contempt charges brought over the reporting of George Pell’s conviction for child sex offences had a ‘devastating bazooka-sized hole’, the Victorian Su­preme Court has heard.

George Pell in Rome after he was acquitted of sexual abuse charges in Victoria. Dr Matthew Collins QC, acting for several of the media organisations, has told the Supreme Court that all charges against the media should be tossed out. Picture: Victor Sokolowicz

Contempt charges brought over the reporting of George Pell’s conviction for child sex offences against News Corp and Fairfax/Nine had a “devastating bazooka-sized hole”, the Victorian Su­preme Court has heard, with the prosecution case reliant on internet searches made two weeks after publication and broadcast.

As many as 30 national publications, broadcasters and journalists are on trial charged with contempt and breaching a suppression order over reporting following the conviction of Cardinal Pell on the charges in 2018.

County Court chief Judge Peter Kidd had issued a suppression order on the proceedings because Cardinal Pell was due to face a second trial on further child sex charges, known as the “swimmers trial”. These charges were later withdrawn.

Australian media reports on the day after the verdict did not name Cardinal Pell or the charges. However, the Director of Public Prosecutions alleges the reporting interfered with or frustrated the administration of justice by having the tendency to encourage the public to conduct online searches about the case.

Matthew Collins QC, acting for several of the media organisations, told the court the prosecution case was that Australian media reports directed the public to search online for non-existent ­articles by overseas media.

“It simply does not give rise to a case to answer,” he said.

He took the court to an online article from the New York Post which referred to an article published earlier by The Age.

“(The Australian media) can’t have been encouraging people to go online and find articles that did not exist,” he said.

Dr Collins said the prosecution had provided the court with 35 ­articles and no evidence that the overwhelming majority of articles were published before the Australian media reports.

The court heard the first Australian publications and broadcasts were made on December 13, 2018, but the Office of Public Prosecutions did not make an online search until December 17.

“Three to four days is an ­eternity in the era of short news cycles,” Dr Collins said.

The first search used the terms “high profile conviction and crime” and produced three results, all published after the Australian reports.

The second search on December 27 used the term “gag order Australia”, which Dr Collins said was an American phrase, and produced six results.

“It is inconceivable that any person who read, heard or saw the impugned publications or broadcasts would have done (a search) by typing in the words “gag order Australia”, Dr Collins said.

He said most of the Australian reports used the common Australian term “suppression order”.

“The second search involves confirmatory bias,” he said.

The two other searches relied on by the prosecution used “Australian convicted of awful crime” and “well-known Australian found guilty”.

Other searches were made on December 28, including the phrases “high profile Australian”, “high profile Australian convicted”, “high profile Australian who it is”, “high profile Australian case censored”, “high profile Australian found guilty” and “world reading very important story”.

Dr Collins said these searches produced no articles put before the court. “This is a devastating bazooka-sized hole in the theory behind the (prosecution case),” he said. “With the passage of time, one finds more material on the internet, not less.”

Dr Collins submitted that “each and every one of the charges will fail” because of the way they were presented.

Cardinal Pell was ultimately acquitted by the High Court of abusing two choirboys in St Patrick’s Cathedral in 1996 when he was Archbishop of Melbourne.

The hearing continues.