•    Intent to elicit comment from jurors amounts to contempt.

Solicitor-General v Radio New Zealand [1994]
Facts: T was tried and convicted of murdering 2 swedish tourists, at time of conviction the bodies had not been found. Following the bodies being discovered Radio NZ decided to make theor own investigation and rang each juror asking them about the discovery of the bodies and whether that changed their mind as to the guilt of T. T was in middle of appeal at the time. 8 of the 9 jurors were contacted.  8 of the jurors expressed outrage. One juror did not and said that she felt guilty that she had made the wrong decision. Radio NZ used material acquired from jurors for a broadcast which had an audience of 670 000 people. Contempt proceedings were initiated.
Issue: Whether or not disclosing jury deliberations amounted to contempt of court?

Held: Not every approach to a juror is a case of contempt. however in this case it was done so with the intent to elicit comment about the verdicts, and jurors’ views on the discovery of new evidence. The approach to jurors was systematic showing a determination to obtain publishable material.  Found to be an aggrerious form of contempt. There was a clear  intention to broadcast the material. There was an overwhelmingly corrosive tendency to undermine the administration of justice. The nature of the publication would make jurors not want to be jurors.Broadcasts were repeated more than once.

Issues raised in revealing jurors identity: There was an open breach of the secrecy of the jury room, making it plain to future jurors in a highly public way that jury service was not necessarily anonymous.  The statutory protection of names, addresses and telephone numbers was also an exceptional one. Need for candour- if people knew that deliberations were to be criticized or used by media this would inhibit them. Dimunition of quality of justice.

Factors used to determine  contempt: contents of the statements published;the timing of the publication; size of the audience; what is likely nature and duration of the statements being made

This case was distinguished from A-G v New Statesman as the revelations did not raise any legitimate matters of public concern and achieved no more than the titillation of the listening public. Thus contempt of court made out.

- Statute – Jury Act 1977 (NSW)

68 Disclosure etc of identity or address of juror
(1) A person shall not, except in accordance with this Act, wilfully publish any material, broadcast any matter or otherwise disclose any information which is likely to lead to the identification of a juror or former juror in a particular trial or inquest.
Penalty: In the case of a corporation, $250,000; in any other case, 2 years imprisonment or 50 penalty units (or both).
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to the identification of a former juror with the consent of the former juror.
(3) A reference in this section to the identification of a juror or former juror includes a reference to the disclosure of the address of the juror or former juror.
(4) Subsection (1) does not apply to the disclosure of information by the sheriff to any of the following bodies or persons for the purposes of an investigation or prosecution of a contempt of court or an offence relating to a juror or a jury:
(a) a court,
(b) the New South Wales Crime Commission,
(c) the Independent Commission Against Corruption,
(d) the Police Integrity Commission,
(e) the Australian Crime Commission,
(f) the Director of Public Prosecutions,
(g) the Police Service,
(h) the Australian Federal Police.
(5) Subsection (1) does not apply to the disclosure of information by the sheriff to a person in accordance with an authority granted by the Attorney General for the conduct of a research project into matters relating to juries or jurors.
(6) In this section: "court" includes any tribunal, authority or person having power to require the production of documents or the answering of questions
•    It is an offence to willfully publish anything to identify a juror or former juror. (1)
•    It is not an offence if the juror consents. (2)
•    Disclsure of address encompasses identification. (3)
•    Exception (4) & (5)

68A Soliciting information from or harassing jurors or former jurors
(1) A person must not solicit information from, or harass, a juror or former juror for the purpose of obtaining information about:
(a) the deliberations of a jury, or
(b) how a juror, or the jury, formed any opinion or conclusion in relation to an issue arising in a trial or coronial inquest.
Maximum penalty on indictment: imprisonment for 7 years.
(2) The deliberations of a jury include statements made, opinions expressed, arguments advanced or votes cast by members of the jury in the course of their deliberations.
(3) Subsection (1) does not prohibit a person from soliciting information from a juror or former juror in accordance with an authority granted by the Attorney General for the conduct of a research project into matters relating to juries or jury service.
(4) Subsection (1) does not prohibit any of the following bodies or persons from soliciting information from a juror or former juror for the purposes of an investigation or prosecution of a contempt of court or an offence relating to a juror or a jury:
(a) a court,
(b) the New South Wales Crime Commission,
(c) the Independent Commission Against Corruption,
(d) the Police Integrity Commission,
(e) the Australian Crime Commission,
(f) the Director of Public Prosecutions,
(g) the Police Service,
(h) the Australian Federal Police.
(4A) Subsection (1) does not prohibit a juror from soliciting information from another member of the jury during a trial or coronial inquest.
(5) In this section: "court" includes any tribunal, authority or person having power to require the production of documents or the answering of questions.
-    s 68A – creates an offence of soliciting information from or harassing juror for purposes of obtaining infor about deliberations of jurors.
-    What is meant by deliberation of jury (2)
-    Needs to be read in conjunction with s 68A(2) and s 68A(5)
-    Exceptions (3) & (4)

68B Disclosure of information by jurors etc
(1) A juror must not, except with the consent of or at the request of the judge or coroner, wilfully disclose to any person during the trial or coronial inquest information about:
(a) the deliberations of the jury, or
(b) how a juror, or the jury, formed any opinion or conclusion in relation to an issue arising in the trial or coronial inquest.
Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.
(2) A person (including a juror or former juror) must not, for a fee, gain or reward, disclose or offer to disclose to any person information about:
(a) the deliberations of a jury, or
(b) how a juror, or a jury, formed any opinion or conclusion in relation to an issue arising in a trial or coronial inquest.
Maximum penalty: 50 penalty units.
(3) The deliberations of a jury include statements made, opinions expressed, arguments advanced or votes cast by members of the jury in the course of their deliberations.
(4) Subsection (1) does not prohibit a juror from disclosing information to another member of the jury during a trial or coronial inquest.
-    S 68B(1) while trial is on foot it is an offence on part of jurors to disclose anything.
-    S 68B(2) – juror or former jury cannot disclose for fee, gain or reward
-    S 68B(3) – what constitutes deliberation of a jury.

How do the common law principles interact with the statutory provisions?

•    Whether the common law supplements or coexists with the Jury act - this has not been the subject of authority.

 R v Laws [2000]
Facts: Murder trial where 2 men are acquitted of murdering a third man. The jury took a very long time to deliberate. One juror, Mrs Hansen, was convinced that the 2 men had been guilty but her will was overborn in the jury. H went to whitepages and called deceased’s mother, and apologized and disclosed in detail what had happened in the jury room. The mother rang Daily Telegraph which published story. A mututal friend of Hansen and Mrs Laws said for John to ring H. John’s producers telephoned Mrs H and got her approval to appear on air.  L then asked a series of questions about the jury deliberations. Charged under s 68A(1) – attempting to solicit info from a former juror.  

Held: (Wood J)Found Laws guilty of contempt. Original penalty for breach of s.68A is 7 years imprisonment. However, sentenced Laws to 15 month imprisonment, suspended to good behaviour bond

Factors considered in Sentencing:
1.    Laws argued that the penalty should be minimised however the judge held
    ignorance of the law is no excuse.
2.    Laws said he was motivated by a genuine concern for H.But crux of interview
was not H’s welfare, but what happened in the jury room. Wood suggested that it
should have been conducted off air not on radio
3.    Laws has poor track record for contempt of court
4.    Laws was a high profile person; ought to have known that this was wrong
5.    Size of his audience

3. BREACHING OR UNDERMINING COURT ORDERS OF SECRECY

•    If you do not have actual or constructive notice of injunction then you cannot interfere with court orders of secrecy.

Attorney-General v Times Newspapers [1992] (Spycatcher Case)
Facts: MI5 operative had stories and decided to write memoirs (Spycatcher). Atempted to have it published in the UK & Australia. A-G instituted proceedings in High Court of Justice for breach of confidence and Breach of Official Secrets Act. An interlocutory injunction  was set against him. As a protective mechanism, English A-G also instituted proceedings in SC of NSW. The Guardian and the Observer began reporting proceedings
and traversed material which was discussed in open court. A-G instituted contempt proceedings against Guardian and Observer. Further newspapers also reproduce material of Right’s allegation.
Issue: Is it contempt of court by non-party publisher to publish material which had the publisher been subject to injunction have been a contempt of court? No. injunction only binds parties to the proceedings.
Appeal to HOL: (In the meantime a book is published in the US)
Issue: if a publisher is not subject to injunction can the publisher publish material that is subject to the injunction?? If a third party, by their conduct has knowingly impeded or interfered with the administration of justice by the court then they cannot publish (Lord Brandon) Main issue is preserving the administration of justice - so the fact that injunction only binds the parties bound by the injunction doesn’t preserve administration of justice.

Question is whether there was actual or constructive notice? If they have no actual or reasonable means the publication might not have a tendency to interfere with the administration of justice.

Held: Not in breach of injunction against the Guardian and the Observer.It is irrelevant if the third party is aiding and abetting the parties to the injunction or whether they are acting of their own accord. Knowledge is the key component.Interference with the administration of justice is not defined but it was held that where the act in question destroys the subject matter of the action in whole or part before the trial of the action the purpose of the trial will be wholly or partly nullified.

•    Knowledge of concealment amounts to contempt especially in blackmail as it would deter people from coming forward.

R v Socialist Workers Printers and Publishers [1975]
Facts:  Prosecution on foot for blackmail. Two victims of the blackmail Mr Y & Mr Z gave evidence at trial on the condition of anonymity. The  proceedings occurred before a jury and  towards the end of trial, the Socialist Worker’s editor published a work entitled “Why oh Lord Y” which disclosed the name and address of Y & Z. Crown proceeded against Socialist Workers.
Issue: Whether or not it was an interference with the administration of justice by breaching or underminging a court order of secrecy?
Held:Court proceeded on basis that there was interference with administration of justice as an ongoing process because of breach of secrecy.Contempt had been made out – order had been made to protect the identity of the persons. The court order put ppl on notice in the court room. If blackmail victims had been named, blackmailers would get away with their crime. In the published article Mr Foot showed that he knew that the concealment of the witnesses’ was being done with the approval of the judge. Publication of name and identity had tendency to undermine administration of justice.

Continued on page 10