Channel Seven Adelaide convicted and fined $100,000 for contempt of court over reporting of rape trial
A conviction has been recorded against Channel Seven Adelaide. (AAP: Joel Carrett)
In short:
Channel Seven Adelaide has conceded they were in contempt when they broadcasted a news report incorrectly linking withdrawn gang rape charges to a separate rape trial.
The judge said the news story contained "an element of sensationalism".
What's next?
The network was ordered to pay a fine of $100,000 and the applicant's legal fees.
Channel Seven Adelaide has been ordered to pay a fine of $100,000 after admitting wrongdoing by their "sensationalist" reporting of a rape trial in June last year.
The Registrar of the District Court of South Australia brought legal proceedings against the network, alleging they were in contempt of court after they broadcasted a story linking discontinued gang rape charges to a separate rape trial.
The ABC understands the story was aired while the station's regular court reporter was on leave.
Judge Rauf Soulio said the network conceded they were in contempt when incorrectly linking a rape trial to withdrawn charges relating to an alleged gang rape on Hindley Street in December 2022.
"The news story in question was announced by the presenter in the station in the following terms: '7 News can tonight reveal bombshell sex crime charges against a man previously accused of a notorious city gang rape'," Judge Soulio said.
"There was then a live-cross to the reporter in question who was standing outside the Sir Samuel Way building where the jury trial was being conducted."
The news story included a live-cross to a reporter outside the Sir Samuel Way court building in Adelaide. (ABC News: Che Chorley)
Judge Soulio said the story was later posted to social media and depicted a pixelated image of the accused, but said it was still possible to "ascertain the clothing he was wearing, which included a dark suit and white sport shoes [and] his legal representative was visible in the footage".
"That footage would have been inevitably sufficient to enable any juror involved in the case to identify the accused being referred to as the subject of the trial on which they were deliberating,"he said.
"In addition, there is evidence that was the only rape trial proceeding at that time in this court."
Judge Soulio said the story "contained an element of sensationalism" by referring to the gang rape allegations which had not been pursued by the Director of Public Prosecutions as of April 2023.
"It was, in effect, a means of re-agitating the allegations relating to the Hindley Street incident in the context of separate charges, which the counsel for the applicant put would otherwise would not have been of interest," he said.
"Counsel submitted it was to sensationalise reporting of a trial that was at least, on the basis of the respondents' report, likely of little to no interest to viewers unless linked to a more controversial earlier gang rape."
Channel Seven Adelaide was ordered to pay $100,000 for contempt of court. (Four Corners: Nick Wiggins)
Judge Soulio said the network ignored the "golden rule of court reporting".
"The issue which lies at the heart of a charge of contempt … is what is called the 'golden rule of court reporting', that is that while proceedings are being tried, information that is not admitted as evidence before the jury, is not reported or published to prevent the possibility the jury is influenced by prejudicial, extraneous or irrelevant information," he said.
"It appears there was not a sufficient appreciation in the way 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 to have regard to that prospect and to take steps to avoid that possibility.
"The impact … was serious, the impact of the participants in the jury trial … not only the accused but the complainant was very significant."
Judge Soulio said he hoped the case against the network would serve as a reminder to other news broadcasters in the state of the obligations to responsibly report on matters before the court.
"There is a need, an important aspect of the disposition of a charge of this nature to deter and reflect to others the seriousness in which such conduct is regarded and importance of the compliance with obligations of what I've described as the golden rule," he said.
A conviction was recorded against Channel Seven Adelaide and they were ordered to pay a fine of $100,000 as well as the legal fees of the applicant.