ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR NEW SOUTH WALES vy UNITED TELECASTERS SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL GLEESON CJ, KIRBY P and PRIESTLEY JA 2 August 1990, 11 October 1990 [1990] NSWCA 11 CONTEMPT — criminal contempt — television broadcast contains statements that an accused person has confessed to three murders — closeup — moving photographs of the accused person broadcast after arrest but before his appearance in court — television licensee admits contempt — held: (1) A declaration of contempt of court should be made. As a general rule the publication, otherwise than as a fair report of court proceedings, of the fact that an accused person has made an alleged confession out of court before trial is likely to be prejudicial to a fair trial of accused and to constitute contempt. Attorney — General (NSW) v John Fairfax and Sons Ltd [1980] 1 NSWLR 362; Hinch v Attorney General of Victoria (1987) 164 CLR 15 applied: (2) The licensee should be fined $75,000. Reference made to the relevance of (a) Proportionality of punishment of connected cases; (b) Plea of guilty; (c) Expressions of regret and of appreciation of the seriousness of the contempt involved; (d) Steps taken to improve the system for monitoring and excluding from broadcast material in contempt of court; (e) Pre-existing publicity of accused during a manhunt; (f) The delay between the broadcast and any trial of the accused and the capacity of a jury to exclude from its mind pretial publicity. Attorney General for New South Wales v John Fairfax and Sons Ltd and Bacon (1986) 6 NSWLR 695, 711 referred to. Director of Public Prosecutions v John Fairfax and Sons Ltd and Others (1987) 8 NSWLR 732 distinguished. Gleeson CJ, Kirby P and Priestley JA. By his amended summons, the Attorney General seeks a declaration that United Telecasters Sydney Limited (the opponent) is guilty of contempt of court for broadcasting on television on 30 July 1989 matter which likely or calculated or had a tendency to interfere with the administration of justice in connection with the trial of Paul Gerald Mason on three charges of murder and one charge of attempted murder. The Attorney General also seeks an order that the opponent be punished or otherwise dealt with for such contempt of court. The opponent admitted the contempt. It is consented to the Court's making a declaration in the terms sought. The only issue before the court is therefore the penalty, if any, which ought to be imposed in the circumstances proved by the evidence. Circumstances of Contempt The opponent holds a commercial television license under the Broadcasting Act 1942 (Cth). That licence was in force on Sunday, 30 July 1989. According to the evidence, the principal viewing area in which the signal transmitted by the opponent was received comprised the suburbs of metropolitan Sydney, with an estimated potential audience of 3.6 million persons, or 2.6 million of the age of 18 and above. The signal was not transmitted for rebroadcast by an associated television station in the Wollongong area as was first thought. However, it was proved that some households in that area have receiving equipment which permits the opponent's transmission to be viewed there. The significance of this fact will emerge later. 2 UNREPORTED JUDGMENTS On 12 May 1989 at Geary's Gap near Quenbeyan, Mrs Mary Clark was savagely attacked. The circumstances of her being found unconscious by here husband, and dying soon afterwards were particularly distressing. The assailant was not at first discovered. The crime attracted widespread publicity. It may readily be inferred that there was much community concern that the killer was at large. This concern increased when, on 27 July 1989 at her home at Pambula Beach, in the same region of the State, Mrs Ruth Ferguson was murdered in similar circumstances. Her son was strangled. There was further public concern and coverage in the electronic and print media, proved in evidence in the present case. Almost immediately after the offences of 27 July 1989, a police manhunt began for a suspect, Paul Mason. Photographs of his face and details of his name were published in both the print and electronic media with an indication that the police wished to interview him in connection with the offences. On the evening of Saturday 29 July 1989, Mr Mason's father gave a television interview which was broadcast by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in its regular news broadcast. In it, he asserted his belief in his son's innocence, he protested the way in which the media had suggested his son's guilt before conviction by a jury, and he appealed to his son to come forward. Possibly in response to this plea, at about 10 pm on 29 July 1989 Paul Mason surrendered to officers of the Australian Federal Police in the Woden Police Station in the Australian Capital Territory. He was transferred to the Queanbeyan Police Station in New South Wales where a lengthy process of interrogation began, and which extended into the early hours of Sunday, 30 July 1989. In the course of that interrogation, Mr Mason signed records of interview confessing to the murders of Mrs Clark, Mrs Ferguson and her son Mark and made statements relevant to the allegation of attempted murder of Samuel Clark. The last of these charges was laid at about 12.55 pm on Sunday, 30 July 1989. This followed Mr Mason's being taken to the Clarks' farm at Geary's Gap, handcuffed and in custody. At about | pm on the afternoon of that day, a "media conference" took place outside the Queanbeyan Police Station. In it, police officers involved in the investigation of the offences answered numerous questions asked by journalists about the prisoner. One officer, Detective Dean, said that the suspect had confessed. Later in the afternoon the prisoner and a number of police travelled from Canberra Airport to Merimbula Airport and then by car to Pambula Beach. A large number of representatives of the media, including a crew of the opponent, was present filming the prisoner's movements as, still handcuffed, he moved about the premises. He was then returned to Queanbeyan. The prisoner was first brought before a court on Monday, 31 July 1989. The charges were adjourned to the Queanbeyan Local Court on 14 August 1989. On that day they were further adjourned to 16 October 1989. Bail was on each occasion refused. On 11 September 1989, the prisoner, Paul Mason, committed suicide in Goulburn Gaol. Against the background we have described, it was inevitable that there should be media coverage of the surrender and arrest, and charges brought against Mr Mason. That the broadcast in regard to which the charge is made went beyond permissible limits is agreed to by the opponent. The text of the broadcast was: "A Sydney man has been charged with the pick axe murders of two young mothers and a strangulation of a baby boy. Twenty-eight year-old Paul Gerald Mason, the subject of an extensive police hunt, gave himself up last night to Canberra Police. UWRATORNEY GENERAL FOR NEW SOUTH WALES v UNITED TELECASTERS (Gleeso& CJ, Kirby P and Priestley JA) Police say Mason will also face the charge of attempted murder on another baby, the son of the first murder victim. Reporter: Following a gruelling 8 hour interview with homicide detectives the twenty-eight year-old unemployed labourer was driven back to the scene of the first murder. Mason allegedly told police he carried out his first murder spree to satisfy an uncontrollable urge to kill. Retracing his steps, Mason led detectives to where he had also allegedly hidden the murder weapon. A pick axe identical to that used in the South Coast killings. It's alleged he drove back to the isolated farmhouse on Thursday after murdering former school friend Ruth Ferguson and her baby son Mark at their home in Pambula Beach south of Bega that afternoon. Mason has told police he deserted the car and fled on foot living off the land for the next two days. Reporter: Mason has told police he spent the time sleeping in parks and roaming between Gundaroo and the National Capital. In fact, he claims to have travelled the 50 km from the murder scene to Canberra and back no less than three times. Not once being sighted by either police or members of the public. Reporter: He claims he finally surrendered because of the anxiety he was causing his family. Detective Dean: It's very tragic circumstances that Ruth and her son Mark had to suffer the same fate that Mary did before he did surrender himself. Reporter: Around midday Mason was taken to Canberra Airport by Sydney detectives and placed on board a light plane to be flown south to Merimbula. From there he was taken to Pambula Beach again to retrace his movements at the scene of the of last week's double murder. Mason will face Queanbeyan Court tomorrow to answer the three murder and one attempted murder charge. He'll be kept in protective custody overnight in Canberra. Tony Barnao, Eyewitness News." The visual images which accompanied the text increased its impact. They included closeup facial images of Mr Mason. He was portrayed as unshaven, chewing gum and apparently unconcerned. At one point, while handcuffed to a large police officer he was shown seemingly unable to keep up with and being dragged behind him. He was also shown at or near the scenes of the two criminal attacks. Most importantly, he was shown apparently leading police to a secluded cluster of trees after which images were presented of police carrying away what was identified as "the murder weapon". Police were shown walking with this weapon, carefully preserved for obvious use in the trial that must follow. These images taken together with the words of the reporter, Mr Barnao, and Detective Dean can have left no doubt in the mind of any viewer or listener that Mr Mason was guilty of the offences charged. He had "given himself up". He had allegedly told police that he had "carried out" his first "murder spree" because of "an uncontrolled urge to kill". He had actually demonstrated before a very large viewing audience the position of the hidden pick axe, thereby acting out part of the confessional statement to police in public view. The images and words are all the more vivid because of the gruesome nature of the crimes, the natural sympathy attracted to the victims, young women and children, and the unattractive, if not inhuman, light in which the accused was placed both in close-up photographs of his face and in distant shots of his movements in police custody. If this were not enough, the statement by the police officer clearly referred he prisoner's confession of guilt of all of the charges laid. In an age of electronic media, it is inevitable that there will be much more widespread, instantaneous coverage of crime than was possible in earlier times, even with mass produced newspapers. Television, particularly, can bring instant images connected with a crime to the homes and offices of millions. To some 4 UNREPORTED JUDGMENTS extent, these images can be extremely useful in alerting the community to dangers and in securing community help in the apprehension of suspects. It would appear that the present case is an illustration of that fact. There is also a community interest in as free a flow of information about matters of community concern as is compatible with the preservation of other legitimate social objectives. Amongst these is the public interest in the fair trial of any person accused of a criminal offence. We emphasise that the necessity for trials to be fairly conducted is not simply in the interests of the accused persons; the entire community has an interest in assuring the fair trial of persons accused of criminal offences. If the actuality or appearance of a fair trial were regularly undermined by pretrial publicity which could contaminate the deliberations of a jury or be seen as influencing the decision of a judicial officer, the result would be a loss of confidence in the verdict or judgment. The proper administration of criminal justice, which is essential to a peaceful and civilized community would be undermined, as by cynical remarks following a conviction: "What would you expect? He didn't have a chance. He was tried by media." It is to preserve the public interest in the due administration of justice that the law of contempt prevents unqualified statements that an accused person is guilty of an offence, as demonstrated by a confession, except when fairly reported after disclosure to a court of law. Because the opponent has conceded that a contempt occurred in the present case, it is unnecessary for us to examine at length the law on this subject. We agree that the admission was properly made. It is not suggested in this case that the broadcast material complained of concerned only the proposed criminal trial of the accused incidentally to, and in the course and for the purposes of ventilating, a question of public concern. Whilst it was conceded that there was no actual intention on the part of the opponent to interfere with the administration of justice, it was the case of the Attorney General that the opponent had acted recklessly and without proper attention to the responsibilities attaching to it as a public broadcaster. Cf Registrar of the Court of Appeal v Willesee and Others (1985) 3 NSWLR 650; Ex parte Bread Manufacturers Ltd: Re Truth and SPortsman Ltd and Another (1937) 37 SR (NSW) 242, 249. Unlike one of the associated proceedings, no defence was raised in this case that no contempt of court had occurred by reason of the fact that, at the time of the broadcast, the accused was not yet before a court. The opponent specifically declined to argue this point, having given it consideration. In the light of the Court's reasons, published on 31 August last, in Attorney General for New South Wales v TCN Channel 9 Pty Limited, the decision of the opponent was correct. That consideration can therefore be safely ignored. It has long been the law that the publication of the facts that an accused person has made an alleged confession is likely to prejudice a fair trial and is thus contempt. Attorney General v John Fairfax and Sons Ltd [1980] 1 NSWLR 362, 366 and cases there cited. See also N Lowe (ed) Borrie and Lowe's Law of Contempt (2nd ed), 98f. It is necessary to show that the matter complained of had the clear tendency, in practical reality, to interfere with the due course of justice. The law here is concerned not with its own importance but with the practicalities of the risk of prejudice to fair trial: Hinch v Attorney-General for Victoria (1987) 164 CLR 15, 27. That is why the evidence of the viewing audience of the opponent's broadcast was relevant. UWRATORNEY GENERAL FOR NEW SOUTH WALES v UNITED TELECASTERS (Gleesoi CJ, Kirby P and Priestley JA) It is plain from other evidence called, that had Mr Mason lived, he might have stood his trial in Sydney or in Wollongong. His jury would therefore have been drawn from people in the viewing area of the opponent's news programmes. There was a real risk that one or more of the jurors summoned to the trial would have seen the opponent's programme. Even if one only of the jurors had seen the programme, it was inevitable that any memory of the programme would have been recollected and most likely recounted to the other jurors. What was vivid in the programme were features likely to preserve the recollection of the events in the minds of potential jurors: singularly brutal murders; young women and children as victims; an apparently indifferent accused; and above all an accused not only reported as having confessed but also shown acting out his confession in a public demonstration of his guilt. Because the law recognises the likelihood that a decision-maker determining whether the prosecution has, or has not, proved its case against an accused person beyond reasonable doubt may be powerfully influenced by an earlier confession of guilt, it has for centuries been laid down that such confessions are only admitted where they have been made voluntarily. In the present case, there is no evidence to suggest that, had he lived, the prisoner would have sought to exclude his confession. Nor is there evidence that any such application would have succeeded. However, experience teaches that an application might have been made. At the time he confessed Mr Mason had no access to legal advice. It is feasible, in light of the terms of the confessions and the nature of the crimes, that legal representatives might have attempted to argue against the admissibility of the confessions on the ground that the accused was not mentally competent; other arguments may have been that the confessions were secured after the decision had been made to arrest the accused for the offences and before he was taken before a magistrate; or because of the very fact, referred to in the broadcast, that they had been obtained following "a gruelling eight hour interview". These possibilities are now merely speculative. None may have been relied on. If relied on, none may have succeeded. None of this could be known on 30 July 1989. It was not for the opponent to prejudge the possibilities. The broadcast of the confessional material was likely to linger in the minds of potential jurors and, we think, undoubtedly damage both the accused's right to a fair trial and the public interest in maintaining a system of fair trials. Determination of the penalty for the contempt Determination of the penalty to be imposed upon the opponent for its contempt requires consideration of the circumstances in which the broadcast came to be made. The opponent placed before the Court affidavits of certain of its officers and solicitors. These provided evidence, which was not contested, about the system which existed at 30 July 1989 designed to prevent material which could amount to contempt of court being broadcast. It also surveyed the improvements in the system adopted following the commencement of the present prosecution. It explained how the subject broadcast escaped the then existing system. By the affidavit of Mr Thomas Barnett, Head of News for the opponent, the opponent made an apology to the court, an acknowledgment that the broadcast should not have taken place and an expression of deep regret for the fact that it had. Mr Michael Murray was the network solicitor for the opponent in July 1989. It was the practice of members of the newsroom to consult him if they thought a story posed legal problems. In cases of major stories or perceived problems, Mr Murray would consult a solicitor of Blake Dawson Waldron, solicitors, who were 6 UNREPORTED JUDGMENTS retained by the opponent. At the time of the subject broadcast, a different procedure was followed during weekends. Mr Murray claimed that it was unusual for a problem of contempt to come up during the weekend. He claimed that this was so because, typically, at weekends, the news broadcasts by the opponent "comprise sport and items taken from overseas wire services". Mr Murray referred to two documents setting out general advice on media (including contempt) law. One was circulating at 30 July 1989. The other, a more comprehensive document, was prepared and distributed afterwards. These documents were produced to the Court with the affidavit of Mr Michael Lloyd-Jones who is now the network solicitor for the opponent. He also described seminars and staff instruction introduced by the opponent regularly since the present prosecution was commenced. The document circulating at the time of the broadcast cautions strongly against the broadcast of pictures of accused persons after they have been charged. The more comprehensive publication contains the warning that: "Tt is likely to be a contempt of court to publish the following: (1) An accused person's prior convictions (2) Confessional material (3) His identity in cases where identification will be an issue (such as rape) (4) Any other material which under the laws of evidence would be inadmissible in a trial and therefore not normally placed before a jury (5) Publication of evidence prior to a trial (6) Publication of private investigation by the media of a crime pending trial (7) Material commenting unfavourably on an accused's character (8) Material asserting the guilt or innocence or an accused, or (9) Material which may affect witnesses or the evaluation by a jury of their evidence." Warnings in these explicit terms were not available to the persons who had to make the decision to put the subject broadcast to air. It appears that the actual decision to broadcast the story in the form charged was made by Mr Andrew Coombe. He was acting as Chief of Staff in the opponent's newsroom when the story came in from the journalist, Mr Tony Barnao. Neither Mr Coombe nor Mr Barnao gave evidence. However, an affidavit of Mr Kevin Hitchcock, Director of News for the opponent discloses that when he was advised of the proceedings by Mr Barnett, he made investigations and ascertained that no legal advice at all had been sought before the material went to air. According to his affidavit, Mr Hitchcock subsequently reprimanded Mr Barnao and Mr Coombe. He states that Mr Coombe "continues to work under close supervision at all times". According to Mr Barnett, Mr Coombe was considered to be capable of holding a senior position over the weekend period but the weekend on which the subject material was broadcast was one of the first times that he had been acting as weekend Chief of Staff. Mr Coombe is reported to have been most upset by his reprimand which appears possibly to have affected his prospects of promotion as a result of the admitted mistake. According to Mr Barnett when he confronted Mr Coombe he told him that the contempt involved was "a major problem... We could be in deep trouble". He described the contempt as "extremely serious". Although the evidence shows that the opponent's system at the time of the subject broadcast was most imperfect during weekends, it equally shows that during week days it worked adequately. On Monday 31 July 1989, Mr Murray was in the newsroom and was told of the broadcasts over the weekend which he UWRATORNEY GENERAL FOR NEW SOUTH WALES v UNITED TELECASTERS (Gleesoai CJ, Kirby P and Priestley JA) had not previously seen. When it was proposed to repeat some of the material for the Monday broadcast, Mr Murray called for the text of the proposed story. He then spoke with Mr Barnao about it. According to Mr Murray's affidavit he told Mr Barnao "You can't use the confession". To check this he spoke to Mr Robert Todd of Blake Dawson Waldron. Mr Todd, by his affidavit, confirms Mr Murray's statement that the opponent was then advised: "Under no circumstances are you to use any confessional material or any information from the confession. Don't make any mention of the confession at all." A contemporaneous file note of Blake Dawson Waldron confirms that advice in these terms was given. Had that advice been sought and given on the weekend, it might be expected that the subject programme would not have been broadcast, at least in the form set out above. Although senior news journalists and legal advice were available over the weekend, consultation with them depended upon an initial recognition amongst the journalists concerned, and by the Chief of Staff on duty that a problem existed upon which legal advice should be obtained. To remedy the defect evidenced by these proceedings, Mr Barnett and other witnesses of the opponent recounted the steps taken to instruct journalists, to provide them with more written advice, to institute regular seminars and to supervise the Chief of Staff who made the faulty decision not to seek legal advice which would readily have been available to him by a pager, telephone or otherwise. This system is obviously better. There is no reason it could not have been in place before 30 July 1989. The liability of the media to charges of contempt of court has been much discussed in recent years. In considering what penalty is appropriate in the circumstances, account must be taken of the following further matters: 1. The objective nature and content of the broadcast. Any person with the slightest acquaintance of the requirements of the law of contempt would have realized that the broadcast involved a contempt of court; 2. Neither Mr Barnao nor Mr Coombe gave affidavit or oral evidence. Instead, the expedient was adopted of presenting reports of conversations between them and their superiors Mr Hitchcock and Mr Barnett. In these circumstances, it was not possible, although they were the officers of the opponent who made the critical decisions, to interrogate them about their actual consciousness that a risk existed that the story, if broadcast, would amount to contempt of court. In the absence of evidence from them, it is open to the Court to infer that nothing they would have said would have helped the opponent's case.; 3. The opponent, as the licensee, has the responsibility to control what is broadcast and to ensure that the staff who make the relevant decisions have adequate experience and training in the requirements of the law of contempt. The inference most favourable to the opponent in the absence of their testimony is that neither Mr Barnao, nor, more relevantly, Mr Coombe saw any problem whatever in the broadcast of this seriously contemptuous material. The other inference is that they elected to proceed with the story although they realized that it carried some risks; 4. The suggestion that there is less risk of contempt of court at weekends does not excuse the opponent, whose broadcasts could substantially affect the fair trial of persons whose juries would be drawn from the opponent's viewing region, from providing in weekends (as in other times) a fully operational procedure to eliminate or reduce the risk of contemptuous broadcasts. The steps which have been taken since the broadcast complained of indicate that more could have been done earlier; 8 UNREPORTED JUDGMENTS 5. It was argued that the way in which the police conducted their investigation lent the colour of authority and propriety to the broadcast, including that showing the confessional activity of the accused. It is true that some aspects of the police conduct of the investigation lend themselves to criticism. But whilst the police have their responsibilities, it is the opponent, as licensee, which has the great responsibility of determining whether or not material will be broadcast. It is the broadcast which converts the irregularity of conduct by the police to a seriously prejudicial contempt of court; and 6. Had the accused been able, on any of the grounds mentioned above, or others, to exclude the confessional evidence, the prejudice from recollection by jurors of the fact of the earlier confession would have been very serious. Matters mitigating the seriousness of the contempt As against these considerations a number of features of the case must be taken into account in mitigation of the seriousness of the admitted contempt. They include: 1. This is the first offence of the opponent although it has been broadcasting daily news programmes for many years; 2. The opponent has acknowledged the contempt and thereby spared the Attorney General and the community the additional cost of a trial. Cf R v Dooge (1988) 34 A Crim R325,331. In the present case, this consideration may be less significant than in other circumstances. The concession was not made until days before the hearing was fixed to commence; 3. The plea of guilty has been accompanied by proper expressions of regret; an indication of the reprimand and other action taken in respect of the employees concerned; evidence of improved systems which have been introduced to reduce the risk of repetition; and still further procedures introduced with the internal and external solicitors of the opponent to diminish the risk of similar events occurring in the future; 4. It is also appropriate to take into account the horrifying nature of the crime and the real public interest which rendered inevitable a significant follow-up story to the news broadcasts and press reports which had featured the name and photographs of the accused in the days preceding the subject broadcast. There would have been a great deal of public concern, particularly in the region in which the murders took place. Inescapably, the story was a sensational one. Some damage to the fair trial right of the accused had already been done, lawfully, by the publicity of his name and photograph during the police hunt for him. The additional publicity, including the closeup moving photographs and statements of his confession must be measured against the background of the publicity which had already occurred. This is not to excuse that publicity, particularly when it had the character not only of referring to a confession but of portraying it as it was acted out; 5. The improvements in the opponent's system for detecting and excluding contemptuous material from its broadcasts were actually in train at the time of the subject broadcast. The evidence discloses that, at that time, the larger manual with its more explicit instruction was in the course of preparation. The fact that a repetition of the contempt was stopped in its tracks on Monday 31 July 1989 demonstrates the usual effectiveness of the opponent's procedures; 6. It is true as the opponent said that committal proceedings, more proximate to the trial, would probably have included reference to the confessions of the accused. A fair report of any such reference made in court would have been UWRTORNEY GENERAL FOR NEW SOUTH WALES v UNITED TELECASTERS (Gleeso& CJ, Kirby P and Priestley JA) available for broadcast. On the other hand, the committal would have been under the control of a judicial officer. It would certainly not have included the statements and prejudicial moving photographs used in the subject broadcast; and 7. The opponent relied upon the suggested ability of jurors to shut out of their minds material about a case received otherwise than in the course of evidence during the trial. See Attorney General for New South Wales v John Fairfax and Sons Ltd and Bacon (1986) 6 NSWLR 695, 711; X v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd and Another [No 2] (1987) 9 NSWLR 575, 590; Hinch (above) at 31 (Mason CJ). It is probable that, had the accused gone to trial, there would have been a delay of at least ten months during which many people who saw it would have forgotten the details of the broadcasts. A juror who saw the broadcast may not have recalled Mr Mason's confession. But it is the active display of that confession which makes the recollection more likely in the present case than in most. Despite the best endeavours of a trial judge, it would have been difficult to erase that recollection, had it been remembered by a single juror. Normally, this would be unknown so that any warning could only be given in general terms. It was suggested during the argument that it was unnecessary to impose any penalty, save for the declaration and an order for costs. This course has been taken by the Court in certain cases where a system has broken down, although the system was otherwise shown to have been appropriate and effective. In other cases of that kind, a small penalty only has been imposed. Cf Director of Public Prosecutions v John Fairfax and Sons Ltd and Others (1987) 8 NSWLR 732, T46f. In our opinion this is not such a case. Here, the employees of the opponent who made the critical decisions to broadcast the admitted contempt have not given evidence. The basis upon which they made their decisions is therefore left to inference. It has certainly been shown, and acknowledged, that they made a serious mistake. Objectively, that mistake was highly prejudicial to the fair trial of Mr Mason on serious criminal charges. The suggestion that it is to be excused, or understood, by the fact that it occurred in the weekend is completely unpersuasive. It is of course necessary, in dealing with the proved contempt of the opponent in this case to keep in mind the proportionality of the punishments ordered in other connected cases in the series. This we do. A Late Submission After the Court had reserved its decision, the Opponent asked that it be permitted to file a further affidavit and to make further submissions on the basis of the evidence in that affidavit. By consent, the Court gave permission. Written submissions on behalf of the opponent were filed. The Attorney General did not seek to challenge or add to the evidence, and rested upon his earlier submissions. The affidavit showed that on 14 September 1990 Westpac Banking Corporation, acting for itself and as agent for two other banks, appointed Receivers and Managers of the Opponent and of a number of associated companies. The affidavit said that the Receivers had not yet been able to make a complete examination of the financial affairs of the Opponent but it provided a good deal of information about the subject. It was submitted that, in the circumstances, no fine should be imposed. We say no more than this because the Opponent also asked that the financial information disclosed in the affidavit should remain confidential. That application was not opposed, and reasons were advanced in support of the request. Although we are not fully convinced by those reasons, in the particular circumstances we are prepared to accede to the request, 10 UNREPORTED JUDGMENTS principally because we are not persuaded that the financial information put before us should have any effect on the outcome of the matter. The Opponent is not in liquidation. It is carrying on business as a going concern, and evidently intends to continue to do so. Earlier evidence put before the Court showed that it has an extensive business, and the significance of this fact has been referred to in our judgment in the matter concerning TCN Channel Nine Pty Limited. One of the principal objects of punishment in a case such as the present is deterrence, both of the particular wrongdoer, and of others. That remains a significant consideration in the present case. We would not rule out the possibility that there may be cases where evidence of the financial circumstances of a corporate wrongdoer could justify leniency. However, the material put before us does not show that this is such a case. We are, however, proposing to deal leniently with the Opponent for other reasons which are set out above. In the circumstances the following declaration and orders are made by the Court: 1. That the opponent have leave to file the affidavit of James Morrison Millar sworn on 4 October 1990; 2. That the confidential exhibits marked "JMM1" and UJMM2" to the affidavit of James Morrison Millar sworn on 4 October 1990 be kept confidential and the information contained in those exhibits is not to be disclosed except to this Court and the legal advisors of the claimant and the opponent except with the leave of the court; 3. Declare that the opponent is guilty of contempt of court for broadcasting on television on 30 July 1989 matter which was likely or had a tendency to interfere with the administration of justice in connection with the trial of Paul Gerald Mason on three charges of murder and one charge of attempted murder; 4. Order that the opponent be fined $75,000 for such contempt of court; and 5. Order that the opponent pay the Attorney General's costs of and incidental to the proceedings. Counsel for the Claimant: Mr BM James QC, P Lakatos Counsel for the Opponent: Mr JR Sackar QC, B Cornell Solicitors for the Claimant: Mr HK Roberts, State Crown Solicitor Solicitors for the Opponent: Blake, Dawson and Waldron