Problem Qn 1. DPP v Wran. Fact retrial didnt occur not relevant. 2.

What factors relevant to prosecution mounting case of contempt of court? Implication of guilt? Suggestion of guilt, talks about identification. Witnesses called. Looking at what has been published- does it imply guilt as a matter of fact? Construe what has been published- assessment whether as a matter of factinference is accused is guilty. If you draw that inference. DPP v Wran/ Willisee- tendency.

Identification? AG v Time difference- not photo published. Witnesses. Witnesses talking about identification evidence. Witnesses and sub judice contempt? Raises possibility- prior inconsistent statements? Do the statements constitute interference with administration of justice. Information couldnt be received at trial. Used in retrial as prior inconsistent statement. Evidence is going to be central to the prosecution. Prosecution interest in ensuring evidence isnt tainted. Need to demonstrate nuanced understanding of Civil Aviation Authority ABC, Mirror Newspapers. Articulate principles emerging from that and apply to provide advice.

Sub judice contempt? Bases for implication of guilt. What other factors relevant to liability? Media entities should be able to receive legal advice. Are you going to identify principles- tendency or recklessness tantamount to intention? Cases going through- different approach adopted- liability/ penalty.

Large organisation relevance? Access to better resources/ legal advice. More likely to potentially influence jurors. Broadcast into area where potential jurors can be drawn from. Flagship current affairs program. Not insubstantial audience broadcast into place jurors going to be drawn from- Willisee; Hinch. Look closely- HInch- sorts of factors relevant to questions of liability. Nature and extent of publication, type of journalism engaged in etc. highly relevant.

3. Argument- doesnt purport in its terms to be report of what was said- just recapitulation outside of court: Scott. Argument- this doesnt purport to be a

report- taint both interviewers. No attribution of statements made to a courtroom setting. Problem with second interview. Wasnt set it court so cant be an accurate report. If accept the argument- first interview is not in its terms a report but just a recapitulation outside court. Does that mean- no defense? Not report in terms but in relation- first interview- statement of the bare facts of evidence given in court. Person recapitulated what he said in court: Packer v Peacock. Problem with bare facts argument. Contentious facts. Substance of the facts are contentious. Underlying evidentiary issues. Third argument for channel eight. Bread Manufacturers: overriding public interest- any prejudice incidental/ fortuitous. Crime- prosecution suppression of crime. Now being revived. Community have large interest in seeing cases prosecuted in timely and effective way. Try make argument that is the public interest. The publication doesnt purport in its terms to locate itself in any broader public interest: Willisee.

Need to at least raise BM point but raise to dismiss. Arguments but acknowledge they arent strong in the face of the authorities.

4. Assessment of penalty? Already publicity. (also avoiding liability.) failure to obtain legal advice. Training available- aggravating because it is inadequate. Also- they have the power to withdraw from broadcasting and have used it previously- goes to aggravation. Can you use to infer recklessness- then tantamount to intention which makes the offence more serious. The trial didnt occur so no actual interference with the administration of justice. Mitigating factor but wont help much. Nature of publication, extent of publication. Factors relevant to both liability and penalty. (similar case- broadcast fined $30 000).