Media vs. the Law - case studies

It's little look at the case study which was mentioned in the reading for this week. I thought it was a really good example of how journalists need to understand the fine line between their commentaries and then the impact which this may have on the judicial process. So for those of you who aren’t familiar with the case, back in 1987, Derryn Hinch (who was a radio journalist at the time) was running a campaign against the abuse of power by people in positions of trust, particularly sex offenders. It came to Hinch’s attention that former Catholic Priest, Father Michael Glennon, was facing charges relating to the molestation of children at his youth care foundation. So Hinch basically went on air and revealed all this to his audience, and he also outlined the priest’s prior convictions. So the broadcasts basically implied that Glennon was guilty. Hinch was subsequently charged with subjudice contempt – because his broadcasts were made during the period after Glennon had been charged but before the matter had gone to court. Hinch tried to justify his actions by stating that the public interest in protecting children in Glennon’s care outweighed Glennon’s right to a fair trial. Despite, this the court still maintained that Hinch overstepped the mark and so he had to pay a fine and spend 28 days in jail. As further result of Hinch’s actions, Glennon later appealed against his conviction on the grounds that the radio report had tainted the juror’s judgment on his trial. Only by a 4-3 majority did the court uphold the conviction – so the guilty almost escaped his sentence because of a journalist’s commentary.

I’ve also just got a quote here from Lex Lasry (who is a judge in the Supreme Court of Victoria) and he was commenting on the Mohamed Haneef trial: "I think the real disadvantage in this case, or at least the real potential disadvantage and unfairness in this case, has been that Dr Haneef has had two weeks of solid publicity, including commentaries from the Attorney-General and Prime Minister at one stage, so if he does have to face a trial, then inevitably the fairness of that trial is going to be affected by publicity". So this just sort of reinforces how careful journalists need to be when commenting on criminal matters, because in cases such as this one, it could muddy the trial of an innocent person.