Read the full judgment text of HCMP 001926/2000 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 22 November 2000 before Gall J.
Criminal law – contempt of court – publication of prejudicial matter during ongoing jury trial – murder trial – article identifying accused by name and photograph, describing him as a paedophile, and alleging he killed the victim to silence her, when no such evidence had been adduced – jury discharged and retrial ordered – criminal contempt conceded – whether publication constituted criminal contempt – whether the article, published in a newspaper with circulation of about 428,000 and readership of about 1,736,000, was the most serious form of contempt by reason of publication of a photograph of the accused together with adverse comment – held, yes, following the principle in The Queen v. Thomson Newspapers Ltd ex parte Attorney General [1968] 1 WLR 1 that publishing a photograph of an accused with adverse comment is the most serious form of contempt from the point of view of likely prejudice. Sentencing – criminal contempt by newspaper publisher and editor-in-chief – whether a fine should be imposed on both or only on the publisher – whether the conduct was deliberate, wilful, reckless or grossly negligent, or merely careless – held, the contempt resulted from a series of careless actions rather than deliberate or grossly negligent conduct, and a fine on the publisher is required for deterrence and to uphold the due observance of the law of contempt, following Director of Public Prosecutions v. John Fairfax & Sons Ltd and Ors [1987] 8 NSWLR 732. Mitigation – no prior offending, early (albeit guarded) acceptance of responsibility, and remedial measures taken by the company to prevent recurrence. Outcome – both respondents found in contempt of court; Apple Daily Limited (1st respondent) fined $100,000; no separate fine imposed on Ip Yut Kin (2nd respondent), the editor-in-chief; both respondents ordered to pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to the motion for contempt.
Legal issues: Whether the publication of the article constituted criminal contempt of court · Appropriate sentence for criminal contempt by the publisher and editor-in-chief
Outcome: Both respondents (Apple Daily Limited and Ip Yut Kin) found in contempt of court. Apple Daily Limited fined $100,000; no separate fine imposed on the editor-in-chief, Ip Yut Kin. Both respondents ordered to pay the applicant's costs.
Cited by 2 cases