Packer v Peacock [1912] HCA 8

OF AUSTRALIA. 517

(HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.}

a ' ' 5 . Fi . APPELLANT: AND

K . - * ' ' " . RESPONDENT.

ees ' ' 'i ; i . APPELLANT; AND

é ' B é ' i é . RESPONDENT.

AND ANOTHER. c i cs . APPELLANTS; AND

4 4 . é 2 ns i . RESPONDENT.

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA. =

of Court—Jurisdiction of Supreme Court of Victoria—Criminal charge— H.C. oF As

of matters ten to prevent fair trial--Publication before com- 1912, | for trial—Extent to which publication in newspaper is lawful. eas,

MELBournE,

March 4, 5,

e in respect of which justices may commit him for trial in the Supreme March 4

of Victoria, the publication after his arrest and before he has been so itted of matter tending to prejudice his fair trial in the Supreme Court Griffith C.J.,

contempt of the Supreme Court which that Court has jurisdiction to sniterions,

H.C. or A.

1912, ——

Packi v. Peacock.

Burrec. vw. Peacock.

Smarr v. Peacock.

HIGH COURT [1912,

'The publication in respect of a pending criminal charge of extrinsic ascer- tained facts to which any eye-witness could bear testimony, such as, in the case of a charge of murder, the finding of a body and its condition, the place where it was found, the persons by whom it was found, the arrest of the person accused, is lawful, But the publication of alleged facts depending upon the testimony of some particular person, which may or may not be true and may or may not be admissible in a Court of justice, and the publication of comments on alleged facts are unlawful, if such publication is likely to interfere with the fair trial of the person charged.

Decisions of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Madden C.J.) : In re Packer, Ex parte Peacock, (1911) V.L.R., 401 ; 33 A.L.T., 69, affirmed.

Apprats from the Supreme Court of Victoria.

Orders wisi in the Supreme Court of Victoria were taken out on behalf of Samuel Peacock, a medical practitioner, calling upon John William Packer, publisher of the Age newspaper, Henry Burrell, publisher of the Avyzs newspaper, and Thomas Smart, publisher, and J. E. Davidson, editor, of the Herald newspaper, to show cause why they should not be committed for contempt of the Supreme Court in respect of certain statements and matter relating to Peacock, published in the respective newspapers, which were alleged to tend to imperil the fair and impartial hearing before justices of an information against Peacock charging him with the murder of one Mary Margaret Davies, and the fair and impartial hearing of any charge upon which he might be committed for trial in respect of such information, and to tend to obstruct or interfere with the due course of law and justice.