Applicant v First Respondent

1 This is an application by originating motion under r 75.07 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 1996 (Vic) ("Rules") for punishment of contempts of court allegedly constituted by the publication of an article in The Age on 7 February 2006 and by an online news item in The Age Online being published on the website www.theage.com.au ("website") between 7 and 17 February 2006. The application is brought by the Prothonotary of the Supreme Court. Following an amendment to the originating motion by consent, the application is made against The Age Company Ltd, the publisher of The Age (the first respondent), Andrew Jaspan, the editor-in-chief of The Age Company Ltd (the second respondent), and Fairfax Digital Limited, the owner and operator of the website (the third respondent).[1]

2 The Age Company Ltd and Mr Jaspan have pleaded guilty to the charge of contempt relating to The Age article and Fairfax Digital Limited has pleaded guilty to the charge of contempt relating to the online news item. They have all apologised to the Court. Accordingly, the matter proceeded before me, in essence, as a plea.

3 In relation to The Age Company Ltd, I have decided to record a conviction and impose a fine of $10,000. In relation to Fairfax Digital Limited, I have decided to record a conviction and impose a fine of $2,000. In relation to Mr Jaspan, I have decided not to record a conviction and not to impose any penalty.

4 The circumstances that gave rise to the charges of contempt in this case are similar to the circumstances set out in R v The Herald & Weekly Times Pty Ltd[2] which I decided on 17 July 2008. Accordingly, I draw heavily on that decision (which I will refer to as "the HWT case") both in relation to the background facts and the applicable legal principles.

5 On 6 February 2006 at approximately 10.00pm, Mario Condello, who had been widely reported to have "gangland" connections, was shot dead outside his home. An article on Mr Condello's death was published on the front page of the third edition of The Age for 7 February 2006 under the heading "Gangland War" ("print article"). The print article continued on page 2 where it was accompanied by a chronology setting out 13 separate killings under the heading "Underworld Murders". One item in the chronology stated as follows:

SEPTEMBER 11, 2003 Housam Zayat, 32. Forced from his car and shot dead in a paddock near Werribee, south-west of Melbourne.

I will refer to this item as "the printed offending words". The printed offending words did not appear in either of the previous editions of The Age for 7 February 2006.

6 The website contained an online news item headed "Melbourne gangland death toll" which set out, in chronological order, 28 separate killings. One of the killings was described as follows:

1. September 9, 2003: Housam Zayat, 32, of Fawkner, run off the road and shot dead near the junction of Derrimut and Boundary Roads at Tarneit in Melbourne's semi-rural outer west.

I will refer to the words quoted above as "the online offending words".

7 I will refer to the printed offending words and the online offending words collectively as "the offending words".

8 At the time the offending words were published, Nicholas Riad Ibrahim was on trial in this Court on a charge of murdering Mr Zayat. The trial commenced before Nettle JA and a jury on 30 January 2006 and concluded on 17 February 2006. Mr Ibrahim had pleaded not guilty. He admitted to shooting Mr Zayat but relied on two alternative "defences" to the charge: self-defence and provocation. It was not part of the prosecution's case against Mr Ibrahim that the killing was linked to the so-called "gangland war" or that Mr Zayat had been forced from his car before being shot.[3]

9 The printed offending words were drawn to Nettle JA's attention on 7 February 2006 and the online offending words were drawn to his attention subsequently. On 10 March 2006, his Honour ordered, pursuant to r 75.07 of the Rules, that the Prothonotary apply for punishment of the contempt of court constituted by the publication of the offending words. The Prothonotary made such an application by originating motion dated 5 July 2007. On 11 February 2008, the originating motion was amended to add Fairfax Digital Limited as a respondent.

10 The circumstances in which the offending words came to be published were the subject of affidavits by Mr Jaspan, Simon Johanson (online editor of The Age Online), Christopher Evans (former journalist at The Age), John Silvester (journalist at The Age) and Peter Bartlett (partner of Minter Ellison Lawyers, solicitors for the respondents). None of the deponents were cross-examined.

11 According to Mr Jaspan's affidavit, The Age has a system for the legal review of potentially sensitive material, prior to publication. If a journalist believes that an article may raise legal issues, they are to bring them to the attention of the editorial team. Between the original composition of the article by the journalist and the final print, the article will usually be reviewed by several different members of the editorial team, such as the copytaster, the chief sub-editor, the deputy chief sub-editor, the news editor and the night editor. The editorial staff are experienced journalists. The copytaster's role is to review all reports filed by journalists prior to the submission of those reports to the editorial team, and to "flag" any issues which may arise, including legal issues. Any one of those people may take the step of referring the article to Minter Ellison for legal review.

12 Mr Jaspan also deposed that The Age has in place a system designed to minimise or avoid the risk of infringing the laws of publication, in particular in relation to contempt and defamation. Various publications are generated, either internally or by Minter Ellison, for this purpose, and journalists are offered ongoing training in the law relating to publication.

13 Mr Johanson deposed that the above processes and systems also apply in substance in relation to articles published by, and relevant staff of, the website. He noted that the website's editorial team also seeks direct legal advice from Minter Ellison from time to time.

14 On 6 February 2006, following the shooting of Mr Condello, Mr Evans and Mr Silvester each filed reports relating to that shooting. The print article is based on those reports. The chronology containing the printed offending words was not contained in those reports. The news desk called Mr Bartlett and he gave a broad outline of what could be published and what could not in relation to the shooting of Mr Condello. Mr Bartlett does not recall any mention being made of Mr Ibrahim's trial.

15 Mr Evans gave evidence that he had maintained a chronology of "gangland" killings from some time in 2004 which was designed to be a kind of internal check list and was neither prepared nor suitable for publication in The Age or the website ("internal chronology"). He did not at any time submit it for publication or authorise its publication. At 1.54am on 7 February 2006, the internal chronology was updated to include the death of Mr Condello. Although Mr Evans does not recall doing so, he believes he made the update. A copy of the internal chronology was available to be accessed, modified, duplicated or lifted by all reporters and editorial staff at The Age and The Age Online, via the "News Ed" basket in the Cyber-system. The Cyber-system is The Age's electronic publishing system.

16 The chronology that accompanied the print article, which contained the printed offending words, has some similarities to the internal chronology. Mr Evans deposed that he was not the author of the chronology that accompanied the print article and did not compile that chronology. He does not know what the genesis of the printed chronology was. Mr Jaspan deposed that no-one at the newspaper is able to recall precisely how the chronology containing the printed offending words came to be published. The Age is unable to generate a paper-trail of that chronology, as the records that would ordinarily be available through the Cyber-system have been destroyed as part of the newspaper's ordinary document management process.

17 Mr Jaspan's evidence was that he was not on duty on the night of 6 February 2006 and had no personal knowledge of the offending words prior to their publication. Mr Jaspan also deposed that, while he has editorial responsibility for items published in The Age, he does not have such responsibility for items published on the website. Mr Johanson gave evidence to similar effect, although he noted that the editorial team and news desk of the website work closely with the editorial team and news desk at The Age. Articles which are published on the website may be derived from a variety of sources including articles prepared by the website's own journalists and articles "lifted" from The Age, following consultation.

18 At 8.09am on 7 February 2006, the website published the relevant online news item, which was entirely comprised of a chronology in very similar terms to the internal chronology prepared by Mr Evans. Mr Johanson deposed that it is unclear precisely how the chronology came to be published as the online news item. He gave evidence that it appears that a copy of the internal chronology was at some stage placed in the "Web-ready" basket of the Cyber-system, indicating that it was ready for publication on the website. He does not know how the chronology came to be placed in that basket, and speculated that it may have been duplicated from the version of the internal chronology that was accessible in the "News Ed" basket of the Cyber-system or separately loaded into the "Web-ready" basket from a hard copy of the internal chronology.

19 As a result of the publication of the printed offending words and the article that was in issue in the HWT case, the prosecutor and counsel for Mr Ibrahim applied for, and Nettle JA gave, special directions to the jury as to the need for them to put the contents of media articles out of their minds for the duration of the trial.[4] His Honour also made a suppression order.[5] No application to dismiss the jury was made and the trial of Mr Ibrahim continued. He was convicted of manslaughter on 17 February 2006. It can be inferred from the jury's verdict that the jury was unable to exclude the possibility that Mr Ibrahim was provoked to kill Mr Zayat.[6] It follows that whilst the publication of the offending words caused some disruption and inconvenience, it did not cause any actual prejudice to the trial of Mr Ibrahim.

20 It is a contempt of court to publish something which has "as a matter of practical reality, a tendency to interfere with the due course of justice in a particular case" or a "real and definite tendency to prejudice or embarrass pending proceedings".[7] Proof of an actual intention or purpose to interfere with the administration of justice is unnecessary.[8] Where a contempt of court is constituted by the publication of a newspaper article, the editor can be held guilty of contempt even if he or she had no personal knowledge of the article.[9]

21 In this case, as evidenced by the respondents' guilty pleas, there was no issue that the publication of the printed offending words and the online offending words constituted contempts of court. Those words had a tendency to interfere with the right of Mr Ibrahim to a fair trial by impugning his defences of self-defence and provocation.

22 In considering whether to punish a contemnor and, if so, the nature of that punishment, the considerations that a court will take into account include the seriousness of the offence, the circumstances of the offence, any prior convictions for contempt, and the importance of both specific deterrence of the contemnor from committing such offences and general deterrence of such offences.[10] Other matters which may be significant include the intention and "culpability" of the contemnor,[11] whether any harm was actually caused by the contempt,[12] the existence or otherwise of any system in the relevant organisation for the prevention of the contempt,[13] whether legal advice was sought before publication,[14] the general nature and purpose of the publication (including factors such as the extent to which the publication aspires towards "seriousness" as opposed to sensationalism and the standard of its journalism)[15] and whether the respondent has pleaded guilty, apologised and offered to pay costs. However, it is not necessary to punish a contemnor. In some circumstances, the prosecution itself, the burdens of the trial, the published findings of the court and an order for costs will be adequate to vindicate the public interest.[16]

23 This Court can have regard to ss 7(1)(f) and 8(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) in a proceeding for contempt under Order 75 of the Rules.[17] Section 7(1)(f) provides that if a court finds a person guilty of an offence, it may "with or without recording a conviction, order the offender to pay a fine". Section 8(1) provides:

In exercising its discretion whether or not to record a conviction, a court must have regard to all the circumstances of the case including -

(b) the character and past history of the offender; and

(c) the impact of the recording of a conviction on the offender's economic or social well-being or on his or her employment prospects.

Seriousness of offences, lack of intent and no actual harm

24 It was common ground that there was no intent to cause any harm to the trial of Mr Ibrahim, that no harm was actually caused, that the contempts were neither defiant nor reckless, and that the publications were not sensational in nature. It was also common ground that the contempts were serious, although Mr Beach SC, who appeared with Dr Collins for the respondents, submitted that they were "at the relatively less serious end of the spectrum". The lack of intention and the absence of actual harm are important mitigating factors.

25 The circumstances in which the offending words were published are set out earlier in this judgment. Ms Tate SC, Solicitor-General for Victoria, who appeared with Mr Caleo SC for the Crown, submitted that this was an instance of human error, where the internal chronology, which was unsuitable for publication, had been voluntarily placed in the "News Ed" basket of the Cyber-system, and thus made available for publication, albeit without any intention that it be published without further checking. She submitted that these circumstances should weigh against The Age Company Ltd and Fairfax Digital Limited.

26 Mr Beach submitted that there was intense public interest in the spate of killings that had occurred, there was significant pressure upon the journalists and editorial staff of The Age and The Age Online to publish timely reports of what had occurred and that the story of Mr Condello's death and its connection with other killings in Melbourne was the topic of legitimate, as opposed to merely prurient or salacious, interest to the readers of The Age and The Age Online. He submitted that the nature and extent of Melbourne's underworld killings contributed to the unusual circumstances of the publications giving rise to the charges. The error occurred when a document prepared for internal purposes and not for publication found its way into an open queue on the Cyber-system (that is, the "News Ed" basket). He submitted that the contempts occurred as a result of inadvertent human error.

27 Although, as Mr Beach submitted, this was not a case of a choice being made to press ahead with a self-imposed deadline for publication at the expense of compliance with ordinary procedures guarding against contempt, nevertheless a serious, albeit inadvertent, error was made.

28 As summarised above, systems were in place at the time of the publication of the offending words for avoiding contempts. The Solicitor-General submitted that not only was there human error in this case, in the placing of the internal chronology in the "News Ed" basket, but there was also a failure by the systems to detect that the offending words required consideration and advice by lawyers. She submitted that the systems were not diligently complied with and broke down. However, the Solicitor-General also submitted that the steps that have been taken by The Age Company Ltd since February 2006 to reinforce the systems should be given favourable weight.

29 Mr Beach submitted that the existence of detailed and specific systems, which had recently been reinforced, should be taken into account in the respondents' favour. He submitted that the fact that, through human error, the systems failed to prevent contempts of court, did not mean that the systems were deficient.

30 The existence of systems for avoiding contempts is an important mitigating factor in this case. However, the systems failed at two discrete points. The first was when an item that was not suitable for publication was inadvertently made available for publication. The second was when the item was approved for publication without checking whether it affected any current or pending court proceedings. As a result, the weight to be given to this factor is considerably diminished.

31 As no legal advice was obtained on the offending words, this is not a relevant consideration in this case.

Guilty plea, apology and agreement to pay agreed costs

32 The respondents' guilty plea, their unqualified and unreserved apology and their expression of sincere regret regarding the publication of the offending words are all important mitigating factors in this case.

33 The parties informed me that the respondents have agreed to pay the Crown's costs in the sum of $33,500. I have taken that factor into account in considering what penalty, if any, should be imposed.

34 The parties informed me that Mr Jaspan and Fairfax Digital Limited do not have any prior convictions for contempt and that The Age Company Ltd has five such prior convictions in the last 25 years. In relation to The Age Company Ltd, Mr Beach submitted that this is a relatively unblemished record.

35 The five prior convictions of The Age Company Ltd are set out in R v David Syme & Co Ltd,[18] R v David Syme & Co Ltd; Ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions (WA),[19] R v The Age Co Ltd (Supreme Court of Tasmania),[20] Registrar v Nationwide News Ltd[21] and R v The Age Co Ltd (Supreme Court of Victoria).[22] The circumstances of these prior convictions are, in general, different from those in the present case. The first and fifth related to the publication of prejudicial material about one or more accused who were then on trial, the second and fourth related to breaches of suppression orders, and the third related to the publication of material identifying a victim of indecent assault, which was a contempt of court pursuant to the Evidence Act 1910 (Tas) as then in force. David Syme & Co Ltd was the previous name of The Age Company Ltd. In the first case, the contempt was said to be "most serious and one which ... stemmed at best from gross negligence"[23] and the company was fined $75,000. In the second case, the contempt was unintentional and no punishment was imposed except an order for costs. Fines of $20,000 and $22,500 were imposed on The Age Company Ltd in the third and fourth cases respectively; the contempt in the third case occurred despite legal advice that publication would breach the Evidence Act 1910 (Tas), while that in the fourth was unintentional. A fine of $75,000 was imposed on The Age Company Ltd in the fifth case. Mr Jaspan was found guilty of contempt in the fifth case but no conviction was recorded.

36 The Solicitor-General submitted that there is a general public interest in this Court taking into account the importance of both specific and general deterrence. She submitted that the combination of errors on the part of the respondents amounted to a serious contravention of the systems that were in place, that it is of particular concern that the respondents are unable to explain how the offending words came to be published, and that this Court can have little confidence that errors of the sort that must have occurred will not occur again. The Solicitor-General further submitted that a general deterrence effect should be reflected in relation to other media groups, to reinforce that there must not only be systems, but also diligent compliance with those systems at all times.

37 Mr Beach accepted that penalties must reflect specific and general deterrence considerations. He submitted that specific deterrence was not a significant factor in this case given the evidence of the respondents' consciousness of the need to take care not to breach the law, the procedures in place designed to achieve that objective and the respondents' demonstrated willingness to review and improve their procedures where deficiencies are identified. He submitted that general deterrence has already been achieved in this case by, among other things, the bringing and prosecution of the charges and (by agreement between the parties) the imposition of an order for costs.

38 As there was a serious contravention of The Age Company Ltd's systems for avoiding contempts, which had a flow-on effect on the systems of Fairfax Digital Limited, the penalty to be imposed by the Court in this case should reflect an element of specific deterrence. Although, in this case, the contravention did not in fact prejudice the trial of Mr Ibrahim, similar contraventions in the future could have very serious prejudicial consequences for the administration of justice. The penalty to be imposed should also serve as a general deterrence for other media groups. The media, including online media, must not only have appropriate systems in place to avoid contempt, they must also ensure compliance with those systems in all cases.

Section 8 of the Sentencing Act

39 Section 8(1)(a) of the Sentencing Act refers to the nature of the offence, which I have already considered. Section 8(1)(c) refers to the impact of the recording of a conviction on the offender's economic or social well-being or his or her employment prospects. Although no evidence was given on this issue, it can be inferred that the respondents will be generally worse off if a conviction is recorded than if a conviction is not recorded. Section 8(1)(b) refers to the character and past history of the offender. Mr Jaspan's affidavit contained some favourable evidence about his character and past history. He does not have any prior convictions for contempt of court, although he had previously been found guilty of contempt in one instance.[24] In relation to Fairfax Digital Limited, Mr Beach emphasised the absence of any prior convictions for contempt. In relation to The Age Company Ltd, Mr Beach relied on evidence of the company's "venerable and active history of involvement with charitable and community-based organisations". I have taken all of these matters into account.

40 The Crown did not seek the recording of a conviction or imposition of a fine in relation to Mr Jaspan, and the respondents submitted that this was an appropriate course. I agree. In taking this course, I have had particular regard to the fact that Mr Jaspan was not on duty on the night of 6 February 2006 and that he had no knowledge of the printed offending words prior to their publication, to the unqualified apology he offered to the Court through Mr Beach at the outset of Mr Beach's submissions and in his affidavit, and to his plea of guilty. I also take into account that Mr Jaspan was in Court throughout the hearing, which is an important indication of the sincerity of his apology and his genuine remorse. In all the circumstances, it is sufficient that these reasons record that I am satisfied that Mr Jaspan has committed a contempt of court. No conviction will be recorded in relation to Mr Jaspan and no other penalty will be imposed on him. The orders of the Court will not contain a formal adjudication of guilt in relation to him.[25]

41 In relation to The Age Company Ltd, the Solicitor-General submitted that, as the circumstances were similar to those relating to The Herald & Weekly Times Pty Ltd which I discussed in the HWT case,[26] a similar penalty should be imposed. In that case, The Herald & Weekly Times Pty Ltd was convicted of contempt of court and fined $10,000. Mr Beach highlighted differences between this case and the previous case in support of his submission that lesser penalties were appropriate in this case. Those differences included that the article in issue in the HWT case contained a photograph of Mr Zayat and described him as "a violent criminal" whereas the printed offending words did not do so, and that the printed offending words were published only in the third edition of The Age and thus had a significantly lower readership than the article in issue in the HWT case.

42 Notwithstanding the differences highlighted by Mr Beach, the publication of the printed offending words and the resultant contempt of court have substantial similarities with the publication of the article in issue in the HWT case. Both cases involved serious, albeit inadvertent, breaches of the systems in place to avoid committing a contempt of court and in both cases, those errors had the potential to cause serious harm to the administration of justice. The circumstances of the current case involve a breakdown of the systems at two points, whereas the HWT case involved a breakdown at only one of those points. Also, The Age Company Ltd has had five convictions for contempt in the last 25 years, whereas The Herald & Weekly Times Pty Ltd had had four prior convictions at the time of the HWT case, one of which took place in 1956. As in the HWT case, general deterrence, and to a lesser extent, specific deterrence, are important considerations. Given the similarities, and the desirability of consistency in sentencing, I have decided to convict The Age Company Ltd of contempt of court and to impose a fine of $10,000.

43 In relation to Fairfax Digital Limited, the Solicitor-General submitted that general and specific deterrence warrants a conviction and the imposition of a fine. Mr Beach submitted that a conviction should not be recorded because, in substance, The Age Company Ltd and Fairfax Digital Limited had committed the one contempt on the one day. He also emphasised that Fairfax Digital Limited has no prior convictions for contempt and that the online offending words received only 8,135 unique visits during the time that the item was accessible, 46.3 percent of which occurred in Victoria.

44 In deciding the appropriate penalty for Fairfax Digital Limited, I have taken into account the matters referred to by Mr Beach and also the fact that, had it not been for the error by The Age Company Ltd in placing the internal chronology on the open queue on the Cyber-system, the online offending words would not have been published. In a sense, the error made by Fairfax Digital Limited was a derivative error. However, I do not accept that The Age Company Ltd and Fairfax Digital Limited, in substance, committed one contempt. The Age Online is operated by a different company and has editorial independence from The Age. Fairfax Digital Limited is subject to its own legal obligations to prevent contempts of court. The Age and The Age Online potentially have different audiences, although there may be an overlap, and thus can independently prejudice the administration of justice. In this case, Fairfax Digital Limited committed a separate and distinct contempt of court from the contempt committed by The Age Company Ltd. That contempt had the potential to prejudice Mr Ibrahim's trial independently of the contempt committed by The Age Company Ltd. Therefore, in determining an appropriate penalty for Fairfax Digital Limited, there is a separate need for specific deterrence and also general deterrence for other online media groups. In all the circumstances, I have decided to convict Fairfax Digital Limited of contempt of court and impose a fine of $2,000.

45 As the respondents have agreed to pay the applicant's costs fixed at the amount of $33,500, it is appropriate for me to make an order that reflects that agreement.

46 Subject to any submissions from the parties, I propose to make the following orders:

(a) The first respondent is adjudged guilty of contempt of court in respect of the publication of an article on page 2 of the 7 February 2006 edition of The Age that referred to the death of Housam Zayat. The first respondent is convicted of such contempt of court and is fined $10,000;

(b) The third respondent is adjudged guilty of contempt of court in respect of the publication in The Age Online between 7 and 17 February 2006 that referred to the death of Housam Zayat. The third respondent is convicted of such contempt of court and is fined $2,000;

(c) The first and third respondents pay the applicant's costs of the proceeding fixed in the agreed amount of $33,500.

47 I will hear from the parties on the precise form of order.

[1] The application was originally made against two other individuals who were the authors of the article. Following the filing of affidavit evidence that established that the two individuals either did not write the relevant part of the article (or the online news item) or did not authorise the publication of that part, the originating motion was amended by consent to remove the two individuals as respondents.

[2] [2008] VSC 251.

[3] See R v Ibrahim [2006] VSC 96.

[4] Transcript of Proceedings, R v Ibrahim (Supreme Court of Victoria, Nettle JA, 7 February 2006) 489-90; Transcript of Proceedings, R v Ibrahim (Supreme Court of Victoria, Nettle JA, 10 March 2006) 1.

[5] Transcript of Proceedings, R v Ibrahim (Supreme Court of Victoria, Nettle JA, 7 February 2006) 488. The Age Company Ltd, Mr Jaspan and, after the originating motion was amended on 11 February 2008, Fairfax Digital Limited, were charged with contraventions of the suppression order. These charges were subsequently withdrawn.

[6] R v Ibrahim [2006] VSC 96, [38].

[7] John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd v McRae [1955] HCA 12; (1955) 93 CLR 351, 370, 372 ("McRae"); Victoria v Australian Building Construction Employees' and Builders Labourers' Federation [1982] HCA 31; (1982) 152 CLR 25, 56, 99, 133, 166 ("BLF").

[8] McRae [1955] HCA 12; (1955) 93 CLR 351, 371; BLF [1982] HCA 31; (1982) 152 CLR 25, 56; A-G (NSW) v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd (1985) 6 NSWLR 695, 708-9.

[9] R v David Syme & Co Ltd [1982] VicRp 16; [1982] VR 173, 178 ("David Syme").

[10] R v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (Unreported, Supreme Court of Victoria, Gillard J, 18 February 1998) 6.

[11] David Syme [1982] VicRp 16; [1982] VR 173, 178; DPP (NSW) v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1987) 8 NSWLR 732, 741.

[12] R v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (Unreported, Supreme Court of Victoria, Gillard J, 18 February 1998) 10.

[13] David Syme [1982] VicRp 16; [1982] VR 173, 180, 182.

[14] DPP (Cth) v United Telecasters Sydney Ltd (in liq) (1992) 7 BR 364, 374.

[15] David Syme [1982] VicRp 16; [1982] VR 173, 180.

[16] DPP (NSW) v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1987) 8 NSWLR 732, 742.

[17] R v The Herald & Weekly Times Pty Ltd [2008] VSC 251, [50].

[18] [1982] VicRp 16; [1982] VR 173.

[19] (Unreported, Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia, Kennedy ACJ, Pidgeon and Rowland JJ, 10 July 1996).

[20] [2000] TASSC 62.

[21] [2004] SASC 223; (2004) 89 SASR 113.

[22] [2006] VSC 479. Strictly speaking, this is not a "prior conviction", as the publication in this case occurred after the publication in the present case.

[23] David Syme [1982] VicRp 16; [1982] VR 173, 182.

[24] R v The Age Co Ltd [2006] VSC 479, [17].

[25] Compare Re Perkins; Mesto v Galpin [1998] 4 VR 505, 511-14.

[26] [2008] VSC 251.