QResear.ch

#17444683 at 2022-08-26 10:36:10 (UTC+1)
Q Research Australia #25: My Koala Hates Spam Too Edition

Major COVID-19 lockdown class action to go ahead in Victoria

Marta Pascual Juanola - August 26, 2022

The Victorian government has failed in its bid to have a major COVID-19 class action thrown out of court, lawyers representing the plaintiffs say.

The class action, brought on behalf of retail, hospitality, beauty, and fitness businesses, claims the government's mishandling of Victoria's hotel quarantine program led to the state's second lengthy lockdown in 2020, devastating businesses and resulting in widespread job losses.

Damian Scattini, a partner at law firm Quinn Emanuel who is leading the action on behalf of businesses, said Justice John Dixon had allowed the case to proceed, despite attempts from the state's lawyers to have it tossed out.

More than 1000 businesses have registered to take part in the class action, which is open to any traders that experienced a financial loss as a result of the restrictions.

Lead plaintiffs Keilor Park restaurant 5 Districts NY argue the government was negligent in its response to the pandemic, and had a duty to take reasonable care to ensure that effective infection prevention and control measures were implemented in hotel quarantine, but failed to do so.

Scattini said the program was "a disaster", riddled with unqualified, poorly trained, and ill-equipped quarantine staff.

"Not training, not supervising and walking in and seeing guards with the fingers of their gloves cut off, so they can scroll on their iPhone and not wearing PPE it's a debacle, and it had an inevitable consequence, which was that the virus escaped," he said.

"If the hotel quarantine program had been handled competently by the people in charge, there would not have been a second lockdown."

He argued genomic sequencing at the time revealed the coronavirus outbreak could be traced back to quarantine staff breaching "well known and well understood" infection control protocols, and added successful programs in other states like Queensland and NSW showed the virus could be contained.

Victoria's second wave claimed more than 800 lives and caused four months of tough restrictions, including a nighttime curfew, a widespread commercial shut-down, and a ban on leaving home for anything but exercise and essentials.

Scattini said some business owners had gone from earning $10,000 a week down to $50 while others were forced to cease operating completely while the restrictions were in place. Two years on, they were still struggling, and a class action was the avenue available for them to recover their losses, he said.

"Nothing will give business owners back the sleepless nights, but the negligence can and should be addressed, and business owners ought to be compensated," Scattini said. "That's what this class action is about, and we welcome the court's decision, which allows it to go forward."

The state government lodged an application to have the case thrown out in March last year.

Over two days in the Supreme Court, the state's lawyers argued the government held responsibility towards all Victorians, including the ill and elderly, not just businesses.

They argued the state did not have a duty of care to avoid economic loss when restrictions were imposed by a chief health officer using a discretionary power.

Their bid failed in December and lawyers launched a second attempt to toss the case in April, which has now also failed.

A separate class action on behalf of people who lost work during the same COVID-19 wave led by Carbone Lawyers that was also challenged by the state's lawyers in the Supreme Court is no longer going ahead.

Scattini said the government had been "dragging their heels, kicking and screaming" to kill the case from an early stage, but they would now be forced to answer in court.

"As we've shown, we are not going to give it away and the state of Victoria will have to meet our clients in court," he said.

The Victorian government has been contacted for comment.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/major-covid-19-lockdown-class-action-to-go-ahead-in-victoria-20220826-p5bd1c.html

#15608804 at 2022-02-12 11:43:25 (UTC+1)
Q Research AUSTRALIA #21: MIL-CIV ALLIANCE Edition

Neo-Nazi unmasked as former Young Liberal

Nick McKenzie - February 12, 2022

1/3

On January 19, a propaganda video depicting three masked neo-Nazis burning an Aboriginal flag, performing Sieg Heil salutes and reciting a white supremacist manifesto began circulating on social media. The video was poorly filmed and produced, reeking of a desperate effort to gain publicity and followers for a new extremist group.

Yet it began to gain traction with mainstream news outlets, largely because it singled out Greens senator Lidia Thorpe, who is also Indigenous. The senator's name, alongside a vicious racist slur, was written on a sign behind the men. Soon, terror experts were warning of the potential for the video to incite attacks or further harassment of Thorpe, a development the anonymous neo-Nazi propagandist who uploaded the video greeted with glee in subsequent online postings.

But this neo-Nazi, who uses the online alias "John Dixon", also made a mistake. Among hundreds of vicious and violent online posts - including those referencing the Christchurch terrorist - he left a breadcrumb trail of clues pointing to his true identity.

These clues led to an Australian mobile phone number and an approximate home address in outer suburban Melbourne. Further data mining fully lifted John Dixon's black mask: he is a Victorian man and former Melbourne University Young Liberals office holder named Stefan Eracleous.

A deep dive into Eracleous's online posts, court cases and interactions with other neo-Nazis provides a case study of what ASIO's director-general, Mike Burgess, warned this week is an expanding and deeply disturbing trend: the descent of young Australians - some as young as 13 - into extremism.

The reaction of police to the flag-burning video offers its own insights. It highlights the challenge for security agencies in responding to this growing pool of radicalised Australians whose conduct may not cross a legal line but who may be fanning the flames of civil unrest and violence. Law enforcement sources say this challenge is amplified by the sheer number of online videos and posts published by extremist figures that threaten politicians in the wake of every significant COVID-related announcement.

As Burgess put it on Wednesday, "it's harder to get a sense of what is simply big talk and what is genuine planning for violence". Correspondence sighted by The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald reveals that federal police initially advised Thorpe they could do little about the video because, despite being offensive, it "does not appear to contain material which constitutes a criminal offence".

"As the material has been posted on YouTube, which is owned by Google, the advised course of action is to follow the YouTube process for reporting inappropriate material," the Australian Federal Police wrote to Thorpe's office on January 21. The senator declined to comment.

Since then, Victorian counter-terror authorities have begun assessing the video and the AFP is also understood to be making further inquiries.

Assessing the threat posed by Eracleous - who is in his late 20s and no longer a Liberal Party member - and the small but loud minority of Australians who, online or at rallies, discuss hanging politicians and acquiring firearms, is now devouring huge police and intelligence resources. According to Burgess, combatting rising radicalism should be viewed not only as a concern for security agencies but as a whole-of-society problem.

"As a nation, we need to reflect on why some teenagers are hanging Nazi flags and portraits of the Christchurch killer on their bedroom walls and why others are sharing beheading videos," Burgess said in his annual threat assessment speech on Wednesday night.

(continued)

#13826883 at 2021-06-04 07:34:37 (UTC+1)
Q Research AUSTRALIA #16 - INFILTRATION NOT INVASION Edition

Media fined a combined $1.1m for contempt of court breaches in Pell reports

Adam Cooper - June 4, 2021

1/2

Some of Australia's biggest media companies have been fined a combined $1.1 million for breaching contempt of court laws over the way they first reported George Pell's conviction on sex abuse charges.

The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald are among the news outlets to have pleaded guilty earlier this year to breaching a suppression order over news reports they published in December 2018, in the days after a County Court jury found Cardinal Pell guilty.

The Age was fined $450,000 after pleading guilty to three breaches, related to an online article, a front-page story in the newspaper and an online editorial.

None of the media reports named Cardinal Pell or detailed his charges but referred to a high-profile person being found guilty of serious crimes, when the cardinal was still awaiting another trial. That second trial was later aborted by prosecutors.

Cardinal Pell had his convictions quashed and was released from prison last year following a successful appeal to the High Court.

Supreme Court Justice John Dixon said on Friday some media companies took a "calculated risk" in publishing reports they ought to have known breached the suppression order, and that their breaches diminished the order's "purpose and efficacy".

"In doing so, the media respondents usurped the function of the court in protecting the proper administration of justice and took it upon themselves to determine where the balance lay between Pell's right to a fair second trial … and the public's right to know what happened in the [first] trial," Justice Dixon said.

The media companies, which also include Sydney's The Daily Telegraph, The Courier-Mail in Brisbane, Channel Nine's Today program and radio station 2GB, pleaded guilty in February to a combined 21 charges as part of a plea deal that brought to an end a trial that began last year. Both Nine Radio, which owns 2GB, and Channel Nine are owned by Nine Entertainment Co, which also owns this masthead.

As part of the plea deal, prosecutors withdrew other charges against the news outlets and against 15 individual journalists, which included the editors of some of the nation's biggest newspapers.

Following the jury's guilty verdict at 3.44pm on December 11, 2018, The Age was the first news outlet to publish an article later deemed to have breached the suppression order. It published an online story about 27 hours later, on the evening of December 12, 2018.

The following morning, The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Daily Telegraph and The Courier-Mail all ran front-page stories about the case that were found to have breached the suppression order because they included information derived from the cardinal's trial.

County Court chief judge Peter Kidd had imposed the suppression order over Cardinal Pell's case to ensure nothing was published about the first trial which would have prejudiced his right to a fair second trial.

Judge Kidd revoked the suppression order in February 2019, when prosecutors dropped the second trial against Cardinal Pell, and that revocation allowed the media to report the guilty verdict made three months earlier, and details about the case.

(continued)

#12952871 at 2021-02-17 06:51:59 (UTC+1)
Q Research AUSTRALIA #13 - THE WAR IS REAL Edition

>>12877011
Media await judge's penalties for contempt over early Pell reports

1/2

The decision by The Age to publish early articles about George Pell's sex abuse conviction was, lawyers for the media argue, made to inform readers why the case could not be reported, although the call "was ultimately wrong".

Fourteen news outlets have pleaded guilty to a combined 21 charges of contempt of court for breaching a suppression order with reports published or broadcast in December 2018, in the days after Cardinal Pell was found guilty.

The cardinal last year had his convictions quashed and was released from prison following a successful appeal to the High Court.

The media must now wait to learn what penalties Supreme Court judge Justice John Dixon will impose, after a plea hearing finished on Wednesday. Justice Dixon reserved his decision.

Prosecutors want Justice Dixon to impose significant fines and convictions for what they say was serious offending.

The highest penalty set for contempt in Victoria was Yahoo7's $300,000 fine in 2017 for a report about a murder trial that included details not heard by the jury. That trial had to be aborted.

Lawyers for the media have argued the offending in the Pell case was not among the most serious contempt cases, as there was never an intention to breach the suppression order, the reports ultimately had no bearing on Cardinal Pell's case, the cardinal wasn't named, and the media eventually pleaded guilty and apologised.

Matt Collins, QC, acting for The Age, said the newspaper's then-editor, Alex Lavelle, considered publishing a report on December 11, 2018 - the day Cardinal Pell was found guilty - but chose not to.

But by the next day, he had seen the cardinal's name widely mentioned on social media and in media reports published overseas and was aware of readers questioning why The Age wasn't reporting the jury's verdict.

Dr Collins said Lavelle, after careful consultation with other senior editorial staff and in-house lawyers, approved the publishing of an online report at 7.11pm on December 12, 2018, under the headline: "Why media can't report on a high-profile case."

He said Lavelle was a conscientious, honest and anxious editor who believed at the time the report did not breach the order because it did not name Cardinal Pell or detail the charges or trial. But Dr Collins conceded the editor's decision was "ultimately wrong".

"He was trying to find a way to say something about what was happening without breaching the suppression order," he said.

(continued)

#12877011 at 2021-02-10 05:01:17 (UTC+1)
Q Research AUSTRALIA #13 - THE WAR IS REAL Edition

Media companies apologise to court for breaching Pell suppression order

Adam Cooper - February 10, 2021

Some of Australia's leading media companies have apologised after pleading guilty to contempt of court over the way they first reported Cardinal George Pell's conviction on child sexual abuse charges.

Fourteen news outlets, including The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald, have admitted to a combined 21 charges of breaching a suppression order after publishing and broadcasting reports in December 2018.

The reports did not name Cardinal Pell but said a high-profile person had been found guilty of criminal charges.

The reports used information derived from Cardinal Pell's first trial and this contravened the suppression order set by County Court Chief Judge Peter Kidd. Cardinal Pell was awaiting a second trial at the time but that trial was ultimately aborted by prosecutors.

Cardinal Pell last year had his convictions quashed and was released from prison following a successful appeal to the High Court.

Lawyers for the media on Wednesday told the Supreme Court their clients offered sincere, unqualified apologies to the courts and Judge Kidd for the breaches.

Will Houghton, QC, representing some News Corp publications, said the breach was unusual in that it was not based on a production mistake or a "[Derryn] Hinch-like" deliberate action, but came after careful consideration among senior editorial staff and media lawyers before publication, based on the view at the time that the reports complied with the order.

"It wasn't carelessness, it wasn't inadvertence. It was a conscious and deliberate decision made … to publish those articles in the honest belief that those articles did not breach the suppression order," Mr Houghton said. "They now know to the contrary."

Matt Collins, QC, representing The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald and others, also confirmed his clients offered an unqualified apology.

The Age published the first of the offending reports, an online article published at 7.11pm on December 12, 2018, which came about 27 hours after the jury found Cardinal Pell guilty.

The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald, Sydney's The Daily Telegraph and The Courier Mail all published newspaper stories the following day, and The Australian Financial Review published a hard-copy article the next day.

Other news outlets published online articles, while Channel Nine (owned by Nine, which also owns this masthead) and radio station 2GB broadcast short reports on the morning of December 13, 2018.

The corporate media companies last week pleaded guilty after prosecutors agreed to drop a further 58 contempt charges, 46 of them against individual journalists. The agreement brought to an end a trial that began last year.

Senior management staff at the media companies watched Wednesday's virtual hearing.

Prosecutors are seeking convictions and fines against the media, but the penalties will be up to Justice John Dixon.

Mr Houghton said the media had offered to bear the $650,000 cost of the prosecution's case. The plea hearing is expected to continue into Thursday.

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/media-companies-apologise-to-court-for-breaching-pell-suppression-order-20210210-p57189.html

#11899237 at 2020-12-04 08:20:04 (UTC+1)
Q Research AUSTRALIA #11 - THE SILENT WAR CONTINUES Edition

GO AUSSIE GO! WRWY
AUSTRALIAN NEWS AGENCIES AND JOURNALISTS ON TRIAL FOR TALKING ABOUT CARDINAL PELL ABUSE CASE
WHY WAS THERE A GAG ORDER CONCERNING THE CARDINAL PELL CASE?
WHO CONTROLS AUSTRALIA? WHO REALLY CONTROLS AUSTRALIA?

Judge refuses to dismiss media charges in Pell trial
December 4, 2020 12:09 am Associated Press

MELBOURNE, Australia (AP) - A Supreme Court judge in Australia's Victoria state has dismissed submissions from news media organizations and journalists that there is no case to answer on charges they breached a gag order on reporting about Cardinal George Pell's sex abuse convictions in 2018. More charges were tossed out in the case against Australian media outlets prosecuted over reporting of Pell's abuse convictions. But the judge refused to throw out the bulk of the 87 charges of contempt of court for stories published after the cardinal's guilty verdict. His child sexual abuse convictions were overturned by Australia's High Court earlier this year and the cardinal is back in Rome.

https://wbng.com/2020/12/04/judge-refuses-to-dismiss-media-charges-in-pell-trial/


Judge refuses to dismiss media charges in Pell trial
Updated: December 4, 2020- 12:09 AM
Judge refuses to dismiss media charges in Pell trial
GREGORIO BORGIA / AP
MELBOURNE, Australia (AP) - A Supreme Court judge in Australia's Victoria state on Friday dismissed submissions from news media organizations and journalists that there is no case to answer on charges they breached a gag order on reporting about Cardinal George Pell's sex abuse convictions in 2018.

More charges were tossed out in the case against Australian media outlets prosecuted over reporting of Pell's abuse convictions. But the judge refused to throw out the bulk of the 87 charges of contempt of court for stories published after the cardinal's guilty verdict.
His child sexual abuse convictions were overturned by Australia's High Court earlier this year and the cardinal is back in Rome.
More than two dozen media organizations, reporters and editors were charged with breaching of suppression orders and other reporting rules in the days following the guilty verdicts.
In a mid-trial ruling on Friday, Justice John Dixon dismissed eight contempt charges against Nationwide News, Sydney radio station 2GB, Queensland Newspapers and the Nine Entertainment-owned Fairfax Media.
But he rejected arguments by 27 media outlets, journalists and editors that they had no case to answer for the remaining 79 charges.
Prosecutors last month dropped 13 charges against News Corp. staff and publications. The trial is scheduled to resume on Jan. 28.
Such suppression orders are common in the Australian and British judicial systems. But the enormous international interest in an Australian criminal trial with global ramifications highlighted the difficulty in enforcing such orders in the digital age.
Pell was convicted on Dec. 11, 2018 of sexually abusing two choirboys in a Melbourne cathedral when he was the city's archbishop in the late 1990s.
The trial of Pope Francis' former finance minister and the most senior Catholic to be charged with child sex abuse was not reported in the news media because of the suppression order that forbade publication of details in any format that could be accessed from Australia.
Details were suppressed to prevent prejudicing jurors in a second child abuse trial that Pell was to face three months later.
That second trial was canceled due to a lack of evidence, and Australia's High Court in April overturned all convictions after Pell had spent 13 months in prison.
No foreign news organization has been charged with breaching the suppression order. The U.S. Constitution's First Amendment would prevent such censorship in the United States, so attempting to extradite an American for breaching an Australian suppression order would be futile.
https://www.inquirer.com/wires/ap/judge-refuses-dismiss-media-charges-pell-trial-20201204.html

#11898532 at 2020-12-04 06:12:34 (UTC+1)
Q Research AUSTRALIA #11 - THE SILENT WAR CONTINUES Edition

>>11677647
Pell contempt charges against media whittled down, but most remain

Most of the contempt charges remain against Australian media companies and their journalists over the way they initially reported George Pell's conviction on child sex abuse charges, after a judge dismissed most of the media's arguments they had no case to answer.

Supreme Court Justice John Dixon on Friday said he had found four media companies and four individual journalists each had no case to answer on one charge but dismissed the rest of the media's applications and found in favour of prosecutors. Those companies and journalists still face other contempt charges.

The ruling means 79 charges remain against more than 20 media companies and individuals, including The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald and some of their journalists.

Prosecutors allege news outlets and individual journalists breached a suppression order and other rules by publishing reports in December 2018 about Cardinal Pell's conviction, in the days after he was found guilty and while he was still awaiting another trial.

The media companies are defending the contempt charges. Their reports did not name Cardinal Pell but said a high-profile person had been found guilty of serious charges and was awaiting another trial.

Cardinal Pell was released from prison in April when the High Court quashed his convictions on appeal.

The contempt trial last month began with 100 charges against 30 media companies and journalists but prosecutors withdrew 13 charges against News Corp publications and three of the company's digital editors.

That decision left 87 charges in place, and Justice Dixon's ruling on Friday means a further eight charges were withdrawn.

After prosecutors closed their case against the media, lawyers for the news companies and journalists argued their clients had no case to answer on the remaining charges and called for them to be struck out.

Prosecutors allege the media breached rules about reporting criminal trials and conditions of the suppression order imposed by the County Court, and encouraged readers, listeners and viewers to search online for more information about Cardinal Pell's case.

Prosecutors also argue individual journalists can be held liable for publishing, as they prepared their reports with the intention they were to be published or broadcast. Lawyers for the media submitted to Justice Dixon that prosecutors had failed to prove the case on whether journalists were responsible for publishing.

Justice Dixon on Friday found The Sydney Morning Herald, The Courier Mail and The Daily Telegraph and their editors all had no case to answer on one charge each. The judge also dismissed one charge each against radio station 2GB and presenter Chris Smith.

But those newspapers, editors, 2GB and Mr Smith still face other contempt charges.

Justice Dixon's ruling against the media on Friday does not mean they are guilty of the contempt charges, as prosecutors still have to prove their case. The trial will resume in January.

The County Court imposed the suppression order over Cardinal Pell's case to ensure jurors in the proposed second trial did not know he had been found guilty at the first trial, and therefore could not be influenced.

The second trial was abandoned by prosecutors in February last year, which allowed Australian media to name the cardinal and report the guilty verdict.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/pell-contempt-charges-against-media-whittled-down-but-most-remain-20201204-p56kpt.html

#11677647 at 2020-11-17 07:13:36 (UTC+1)
Q Research AUSTRALIA #11 - THE SILENT WAR CONTINUES Edition

>>11620828
Judge weighs up media's no-case submission on Pell contempt charges

A judge is considering whether Australian media companies and their journalists have a contempt case to answer over the way they first reported George Pell's conviction on child sex abuse charges.

Prosecutors allege news outlets and individual journalists breached a suppression order and other rules by publishing reports in December 2018, in the days after Cardinal Pell was found guilty and while he was still awaiting another trial.

The media companies are defending the contempt charges. Their reports did not name Cardinal Pell but said a high-profile person had been found guilty of serious charges and was awaiting another trial.

Cardinal Pell was released from prison in April when the High Court quashed his convictions on appeal.

Thirteen of the 100 contempt charges against 12 media companies and 18 journalists were withdrawn by prosecutors last week, but lawyers for the media then submitted to the Supreme Court that their clients have no case to answer on the remaining charges and they should be struck out.

Justice John Dixon heard the last of the submissions on Tuesday and reserved his decision on the remaining charges. He is expected to take several days before announcing his decision.

If Justice Dixon decides the media companies have a case to answer, the trial will continue.

Prosecutors argue the media breached conditions of the suppression order imposed by the County Court and encouraged readers, listeners and viewers to search online for more information about the case.

Prosecutors also argue individual journalists can be held liable for publishing, as they prepared their reports with the intention they were to be published or broadcast.

But lawyers for the media companies argue prosecutors have failed to prove their case on the issue of which journalists are responsible for publishing.

They also argue prosecutors failed to prove the news reports encouraged people to search online, as there was no evidence that anyone other than Office of Public Prosecutions solicitors actually conducted searches.

OPP solicitors searched for overseas reports that named Cardinal Pell in the fortnight after his conviction, but their use of terms such as "high profile Australian convicted" and "Australian media can't report it" were mostly unsuccessful.

Of the 12 searches by OPP solicitors, eight yielded nothing. Of the four successful searches, Cardinal Pell was named in articles written by The Washington Post and the New York Post, but those reports were written after the Australian media had published their reports.

Matt Collins, QC, representing The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald and other news outlets and journalists, told the court on Tuesday it was "fanciful speculation" to suggest there were people who heard, read or saw the Australian reports, then conducted a successful search online based on the limited information, and were then to be called as a potential juror in Cardinal Pell's second trial.

The County Court imposed the suppression order over Cardinal Pell's case to ensure jurors in the second trial did not know he had been found guilty at the first trial. The second trial was abandoned by prosecutors in February last year, which allowed Australian media to name the cardinal.

Last week prosecutors withdrew some charges against some News Corp publications and three of the company's digital editors.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/judge-weighs-up-media-s-no-case-submission-on-pell-contempt-charges-20201117-p56f95.html

#11620828 at 2020-11-13 04:58:58 (UTC+1)
Q Research AUSTRALIA #11 - THE SILENT WAR CONTINUES Edition

>>11604518
'No case to answer': Media asks judge to throw out Pell contempt case

The case that could see journalists jailed for reporting on the 2018 verdict against George Pell has not been proved and should be thrown out, lawyers argue.

Lawyers acting for the media have asked a judge to throw out a contempt of court case against them over reporting on the trial of Cardinal George Pell.

Matt Collins QC argued in the Supreme Court of Victoria on Friday there was "no case to answer" because the Crown has not proved its case as set out in court documents.

Dr Collins said the prosecution case was reliant on the fact Australians could read about what happened through international publications online since no media company named Cardinal Pell nor the child sexual abuse charges he was found guilty of. The convictions have since been overturned.

Prosecutors argue Australian media breached a suppression order from Country Court chief judge Peter Kidd in December 2018, after a jury found Cardinal Pell guilty of historic child sex offences.

Chief Judge Kidd ordered the trial of Cardinal Pell could not be reported on, because it could impact the jury in a second trial against him - which was later dropped.

The guilty verdict against Cardinal Pell - which was successfully appealed - was widely reported in international publications, including online, because they do not have to follow orders from Australian courts.

Dr Collins said on Friday the prosecution case was reliant on arguing that reporting by Australian media encouraged people to go online and read details about the case from international media, such as The Washington Post.

"The applicant's case is a very narrow one," he said.

"It is that each of the impugned publications and broadcasts had a tendency to encourage readers or viewers to go online, where they would find one of the 35 online articles (listed by the prosecution).

"None of the (media organisations) named Cardinal Pell, or named the charges of which he had been convicted.

"The prosecution must somehow link the impugned applicants to extraneous material."

Reporting on the trial by Australian media included a News Corp article headlined "Nation's biggest story: The story we can't report".

The story told readers there was a high-profile Australian who had been convicted of a serious crime, but that a court order prevented that person from being named.

The article called the court order "an archaic curb on freedom of the press in the currently digitally connected world".

"We believe that you have the right to know this story now and without any further delay," it said.

Media companies named in the suit include News Corp - the publisher of this website as well as the Herald Sun, The Daily Telegraph and other newspapers - as well as The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald, Channel 9, The Australian Financial Review, 2GB radio, Mamamia, and Business Insider, and individual journalists and editors.

Prosecutor Lisa de Ferrari SC on Friday denied the case was founded on "a narrow point", arguing "despite the valiant attempt" of Dr Collins, the state had argued media breached the suppression order in more than one way.

Cardinal Pell's conviction of child sexual abuse was overturned by the High Court in April and he has returned to the Vatican in Rome, the global centre of Catholicism.

The state is asking judge John Dixon to declare media breached the suppression order.

It is asking that the media organisations and journalists be convicted, imprisoned, fined, and/or "any further or other order" that the court thinks "appropriate".

The trial continues.

https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/media/no-case-to-answer-media-asks-judge-to-throw-out-pell-contempt-case/news-story/ead6312b267ca2554b5acc65e123f179

#11604518 at 2020-11-12 05:28:08 (UTC+1)
Q Research AUSTRALIA #11 - THE SILENT WAR CONTINUES Edition

>>11587807
Prosecutors withdraw some charges against media in Pell contempt trial

Victorian prosecutors have withdrawn 13 of the contempt charges against some Australian media outlets over the way they reported George Pell's initial conviction on child sex abuse charges.

Twelve news outlets and 18 individual journalists began facing trial this week in the Supreme Court, accused of breaching a court-imposed suppression order and other rules related to Cardinal Pell's conviction in December 2018. The media outlets are defending the contempt charges.

Cardinal Pell was released from prison in April when his conviction for sexually abusing two choirboys in the 1990s was overturned and the cardinal was acquitted following a successful appeal to the High Court.

On Thursday, prosecutors withdrew charges related to News Corp mastheads and three of the company's digital editors.

Lisa De Ferrari, SC, acting for the Office of Public Prosecutions, said the digital editors of The Daily Telegraph, Adelaide's The Advertiser and the Geelong Advertiser no longer faced charges.

Those three mastheads had some of their charges withdrawn, and some were withdrawn against the Herald Sun and The Weekly Times.

Justice John Dixon ordered the proceedings against the three digital editors be dismissed.

Charges remain in place for other media companies including The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald and some of those mastheads' journalists.

Cardinal Pell was found guilty by a County Court jury on December 11, 2018, and the OPP alleges the media breached a suppression order by reporting over following days that a high-profile person had been found guilty of serious charges, when the cardinal was still due to face another trial. Cardinal Pell was not named in any of the news reports, nor were the nature of his charges disclosed.

The County Court imposed a suppression order over the cardinal's case because at the time of his conviction he was to face another trial. County Court Chief Judge Peter Kidd lifted the suppression order, allowing media to report the conviction, in February last year when prosecutors abandoned the second trial.

The contempt trial continues.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/prosecutors-withdraw-some-charges-against-media-in-pell-contempt-trial-20201111-p56dn3.html

#11570098 at 2020-11-10 04:50:53 (UTC+1)
Q Research AUSTRALIA #11 - THE SILENT WAR CONTINUES Edition

News reports that referred to Pell conviction effectively invited readers to search online, trial told

News reports that referred to George Pell's conviction on child sex abuse charges without naming the cardinal invited readers to search online for more information, a contempt trial has heard.

Victorian prosecutors are pursuing media companies and individual journalists for contempt of court over the way Cardinal Pell's conviction was reported in 2018, and allege the media breached a court-imposed suppression order by reporting about the case.

The contempt trial began in the Supreme Court on Monday. The media are defending the contempt charges.

Cardinal Pell was released from prison in April when his conviction for sexually abusing two choirboys in the 1990s was overturned following a successful appeal to the High Court.

The Office of Public Prosecutions has charged 30 respondents - comprising 12 corporations and 18 individual journalists - over reports that were published or broadcast in December 2018, in the days after a County Court jury found Cardinal Pell guilty. The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald are among the media outlets charged. Journalists and editors from those mastheads are also facing charges as individuals.

Cardinal Pell was found guilty on December 11, 2018 and the OPP alleges the media breached a suppression order by reporting over the following days that a high-profile person had been found guilty of serious charges, when the cardinal was still due to face another trial. The cardinal was not named in any of the news reports nor were the nature of his charges disclosed.

The suppression order was in place because County Court chief judge Peter Kidd did not want reports about Cardinal Pell's conviction to potentially influence jurors in a second trial. The media were able to report the cardinal's conviction in February last year when prosecutors abandoned the second trial and the suppression order was lifted.

Barrister Lisa De Ferrari, SC, for the OPP, outlined some of the contempt allegations on Monday when she said some Australian media began reporting on December 12, 2018 that a high-profile person was found guilty of serious charges the previous day. Cardinal Pell wasn't named in the reports.

The reports came after some overseas news outlets, including The Washington Post and the Daily Beast website, reported Cardinal Pell's conviction and named him in their stories, the court heard. The overseas media outlets are not being prosecuted.

Ms De Ferrari said a story in the Herald Sun under the headline "Censored", that did not name Cardinal Pell, was an invitation to readers to go and search for more information online.

She said 2GB presenter Chris Smith had also encouraged people to conduct Google searches on an unnamed, high-profile person who was found guilty of an awful crime.

Prosecutors must prove each journalist was aware of the suppression order over Cardinal Pell's name when they published stories about his conviction. Ms De Ferrari sought to draw inferences that journalists were aware there was a suppression order when they published.

Judge Kidd's anger about the reports became clear in the days after the cardinal's conviction, the court heard, during a hearing when he refused an application by the media to lift the suppression order.

Ms De Ferrari said some of the overseas media's reports were still online up until a few months ago.

At 7.11pm on December 12, 2018 The Age published a report that said a high-profile person had been found guilty of serious charges, Ms De Ferrari said, and took the story from its website at 11.31am the following day. In the time the report was online it had 138,644 page views.

In the hours before the story was published, The Age's then editor, Alex Lavelle, emailed a colleague to say he didn't think the story was a breach of the suppression order but an explanation to readers "why we can't report the story".

Lawyers for the media are yet to outline their defence to Justice John Dixon.

A large part of Monday's hearing was allocated to a discussion over which documents the prosecutors were to tender, which frustrated the judge.

"I just don't understand why after two years since this case started we don't have a clear list of the documents being tendered. I just find this unbelieveable," he said.

The trial is expected to run for three weeks.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/crown-must-prove-journalists-were-aware-of-suppression-order-in-publishing-pell-conviction-trial-told-20201109-p56cwo.html

#9317685 at 2020-05-26 07:07:14 (UTC+1)
Q Research AUSTRALIA #8 - WE ARE THE CURE Edition

Multiple contempt trials loom over reporting of Pell's conviction

Contempt of court charges against media organisations over their reporting of George Pell's conviction on sexual abuse charges could be divided into as many as 13 separate trials, based on the number of "separate controversies" alleged.

Thirty journalists and news organisations are accused by Victorian prosecutors of breaching a suppression order imposed by County Court chief judge Peter Kidd, which in December 2018 prevented the media from reporting the guilty verdicts a jury reached against the cardinal.

Cardinal Pell was last month acquitted of charges he sexually abused two choirboys in the 1990s, following a successful appeal to the High Court. The cardinal was released from prison.

Lawyers for the media organisations and prosecutors are still working through pre-trial issues, the Supreme Court heard on Tuesday, and Justice John Dixon encouraged the parties to resolve some of the issues in dispute so a trial could start.

"The matter to me seems to be getting a bit long in the tooth and needs to be pushed along a bit," Justice Dixon said.

The judge set a tentative start date for trial for early November, however, the court heard there could be multiple trials given the alleged offending and circumstances differed among the rival news organisations. The Age is one of the media organisations facing contempt charges.

Barrister Matthew Collins, QC, representing the media, said a total of 11 corporations and 19 individuals faced contempt charges.

But the charges related to 13 "separate controversies", he said, which meant rival news organisations shouldn't be grouped together in one trial. The facts and circumstances of each of the news organisations would be different, Dr Collins said, and they might prefer to employ different lawyers.

"On the face of it, it would be an injustice for rival news organisations to be heard together," he said.

"If our friends think this can be done in one trial … it's just not being realistic."

It is unclear how many trials will be held, but Justice Dixon conceded some cases could drag into next year.

Dr Collins said the media were anxious for the case to go to trial soon as the charges had been "hanging over their heads for far too long".

Lisa De Ferrari, acting for the Office of Public Prosecutions, said more discussions were needed between the parties to iron out pre-trial legal points.

There were still "knotty" issues to discuss and the talks were preferable to "doing it on the run" before the judge, Ms De Ferrari said.

The parties will appear again before Justice Dixon in July.

Prosecutors allege media companies breached Judge Kidd's suppression order by publishing articles and broadcasts that reported a high-profile person had been found guilty of serious charges. Cardinal Pell was not named in any of the stories published or broadcast.

The suppression order was in place because at the time Cardinal Pell was to face a second trial, and Judge Kidd did not want reports of an earlier guilty verdict to influence a second jury.

The suppression order was lifted and media were able to report the guilty verdicts in February last year, when prosecutors abandoned the second trial.

In March last year, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Kerri Judd, QC, filed more than 200 charges against 36 journalists and news organisations, but most of those charges have since been withdrawn.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/multiple-contempt-trials-loom-over-reporting-of-pell-s-conviction-20200526-p54whi.html

#6541726 at 2019-05-20 10:52:28 (UTC+1)
Q Research AUSTRALIA #4 - Q Goes Down Under Edition

Some media charges dropped for reporting of George Pell conviction

Charges have been dropped against a newspaper editor and radio identity for reporting of the Cardinal George Pell sex abuse convictions.

The editor of Melbourne's tabloid Herald Sun newspaper, Damon Johnston, and 2GB broadcaster Ray Hadley will no longer be prosecuted, however dozens of Australian news organisations and editorial staff still face charges.

It is considered an unprecedented media case in Australia, and possibly globally, in terms of the large number of respondents.

Victoria's Director of Public Prosecutions on Monday dropped proceedings against Johnston and Hadley, Supreme Court documents revealed.

But more than 30 news organisations and editorial staff are still facing charges of contempt of court, and aiding and abetting overseas media over their coverage of the cardinal's convictions.

Among those are The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald, Nine Entertainment, The Australian Financial Review, Macquarie Media and website Mamamia.

Journalists and editors have demanded more details of allegations they breached a suppression order and helped foreign media report Pell's child sexual abuse verdict after a jury found him guilty of five charges in December 2018.

Pell was found guilty of attacking two choirboys at St Patrick's Cathedral in the late 1990s.

Suppression orders during the December trial prevented publication of the verdict in Australia until February, however overseas news outlets were reporting the conviction of the high-ranking Vatican figure.

While not naming Pell or alluding to the crime, the Herald Sun's front-page headline alerted readers to the fact the rest of the world was able to report the conviction.

Victoria's County Court had suppressed reporting because a second trial was due on other charges in April 2019. It collapsed in February, and the suppression order was lifted.

Some media outlets had alluded to the verdict - without naming Pell - while the suppression was still in place.

No Australian media named Pell or the charges at the time. But some foreign media did, resulting in the story going viral on social media.

At one point, after the conviction, the verdict was No. 2 in trends on social media platform Twitter.

Victoria's director of Public Prosecutions said a series of publications and broadcasts on December 13 last year were in contempt.

The media organisations' lawyer, Matthew Collins QC, labelled the case "as serious as it gets" in a Supreme Court hearing in April, suggesting guilty findings could have a chilling effect on open justice in Australia.

Justice John Dixon had ordered prosecutors file detailed statements of claim against all individuals facing charges by Monday, and the defence to file responses by June 21.

Pell is appealing his convictions and denies any wrongdoing.

https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/george-pell/2019/05/20/george-pell-media-contempt/