.
Not Restricted
AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
No. S CI 2013 03249
THE QUEEN (ON THE APPLICATION OF THE
PROTHONOTARY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
VICTORIA)
Applicant
v
DERRYN
HINCH
Respondent
---
JUDGE
:
KAYE J
WHERE HELD
:
Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING
:
23, 24 September 2013
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
2 October 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS
:
The Queen v Hinch
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION
:
[2013] VSC 520 First Revision: 7 October 2013
---
CONTEMPT – Publication by respondent of article on the internet – Publication contrary to
non-publication order to which respondent not a party – Whether publication interfered
with order – Whether respondent had sufficient notice of order – Whether public interest
defence applicable to such contempt.
CONTEMPT – Whether publication had tendency to prejudice fair trial of pending criminal
proceedings – Relevance of delay to trial – Relevance of other prejudicial material relating
to the accused – Whether publication justified by a superior public interest.
---
APPEARANCES
:
Counsel
Solicitors
For the Applicant Mr J Langmead SC and
Ms F Forsyth
The Victorian Government
Solicitor’s Office
For the Respondent Mr D Gilbertson HWL Ebsworth Lawyers
SC:AP
1
JUDGMENT
The Queen v Hinch
HIS HONOUR:
1
The applicant seeks declarations that the respondent be adjudged guilty of contempt
of court for making a publication in relation to pending criminal proceedings against
Adrian Ernest Bayley (“Bayley”). That publication consisted of an article written by
the respondent and appearing on his website “HumanHeadline.com.au” (“the
website”) from 5 April 2013 to 9 April 2013. The application is brought by the
Prothonotary of the Supreme Court by originating motion under rule 75.07 of the
Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 1996
.
The facts
2
The principal facts are not in dispute. A number of them were the subject of a
statement of agreed facts.
3
On 28 September 2012, Victoria Police filed charges against Bayley in a proceeding at
the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court, charging him with rape and murder in relation to
the death of Gillian Edie Meagher on 22 September 2012. Two subsequent charges of
rape were added on about 24 January 2013. I shall refer to that proceeding as “the
Meagher proceeding”.
4
On 1 February 2013 and on 4 March 2013, Victoria Police filed twelve charges against
Bayley in three proceedings at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court. Those
proceedings are conveniently referred to as “the first proceedings”. The charges
brought against Bayley included charges of rape, intentionally causing injury and
false imprisonment in relation to three female victims. Those proceedings are
unrelated to the Meagher proceeding (other than that Bayley is the accused in each
proceeding).
5
On 12 March 2013, at a contested committal hearing in the Meagher proceeding,
Bayley pleaded guilty to one count of the rape of Gillian Meagher, but not guilty to
the two other charges of rape and the charge of murder.
6
On the same
day, the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court, in that proceeding, made an
_________________________________________________________________________________
IN THE SUPREME COURT / Queen V Derryn Hinch
Not Restricted
AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
No. S CI 2013 03249
THE QUEEN (ON THE APPLICATION OF THE
PROTHONOTARY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
VICTORIA)
Applicant
v
DERRYN
HINCH
Respondent
---
JUDGE
:
KAYE J
WHERE HELD
:
Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING
:
23, 24 September 2013
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
2 October 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS
:
The Queen v Hinch
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION
:
[2013] VSC 520 First Revision: 7 October 2013
---
CONTEMPT – Publication by respondent of article on the internet – Publication contrary to
non-publication order to which respondent not a party – Whether publication interfered
with order – Whether respondent had sufficient notice of order – Whether public interest
defence applicable to such contempt.
CONTEMPT – Whether publication had tendency to prejudice fair trial of pending criminal
proceedings – Relevance of delay to trial – Relevance of other prejudicial material relating
to the accused – Whether publication justified by a superior public interest.
---
APPEARANCES
:
Counsel
Solicitors
For the Applicant Mr J Langmead SC and
Ms F Forsyth
The Victorian Government
Solicitor’s Office
For the Respondent Mr D Gilbertson HWL Ebsworth Lawyers
SC:AP
1
JUDGMENT
The Queen v Hinch
HIS HONOUR:
1
The applicant seeks declarations that the respondent be adjudged guilty of contempt
of court for making a publication in relation to pending criminal proceedings against
Adrian Ernest Bayley (“Bayley”). That publication consisted of an article written by
the respondent and appearing on his website “HumanHeadline.com.au” (“the
website”) from 5 April 2013 to 9 April 2013. The application is brought by the
Prothonotary of the Supreme Court by originating motion under rule 75.07 of the
Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 1996
.
The facts
2
The principal facts are not in dispute. A number of them were the subject of a
statement of agreed facts.
3
On 28 September 2012, Victoria Police filed charges against Bayley in a proceeding at
the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court, charging him with rape and murder in relation to
the death of Gillian Edie Meagher on 22 September 2012. Two subsequent charges of
rape were added on about 24 January 2013. I shall refer to that proceeding as “the
Meagher proceeding”.
4
On 1 February 2013 and on 4 March 2013, Victoria Police filed twelve charges against
Bayley in three proceedings at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court. Those
proceedings are conveniently referred to as “the first proceedings”. The charges
brought against Bayley included charges of rape, intentionally causing injury and
false imprisonment in relation to three female victims. Those proceedings are
unrelated to the Meagher proceeding (other than that Bayley is the accused in each
proceeding).
5
On 12 March 2013, at a contested committal hearing in the Meagher proceeding,
Bayley pleaded guilty to one count of the rape of Gillian Meagher, but not guilty to
the two other charges of rape and the charge of murder.
6
On the same day, the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court, in that proceeding, made an
No comments:
Post a Comment