Dozens of journalists and major news outlets in Australia have begun defending accusations that they breached a reporting ban on the sexual abuse trial of Cardinal George Pell.<\/p>\n
Pell, the ex-Vatican treasurer, was convicted in December of abusing two boys in 1996. The media was barred from reporting the verdict until February.<\/p>\n
Prosecutors say 23 journalists and 13 publishers committed contempt of court.<\/p>\n
The case could have a “chilling effect” on “open justice”, defence lawyers say.<\/p>\n
If found guilty, the defendants face up to five years in jail and fines of about A$96,000 (\u00a352,000; $69,000).<\/p>\n
They include journalists from many of Australia’s largest news organisations, including the editors of newspapers The Age and the Herald Sun, as well as prominent TV and radio presenters.<\/p>\n
Defence barrister Matthew Collins told a court on Monday that the case was unprecedented in Australian legal history.<\/p>\n
A judge banned the media from reporting on Pell’s trial, in order to prevent any influence on a planned second trial.<\/p>\n
In December, the cardinal was convicted by a jury of sexually abusing two choir boys in Melbourne in 1996.<\/p>\n
The verdict prompted many Australian media outlets to publish articles that referred to the case in some way – although none named Pell. Several non-Australian publications did identify him.<\/p>\n
The reporting ban, known as a suppression order, was lifted earlier this year after prosecutors dropped the planned second trial.<\/p>\n
Pell has launched an appeal against his conviction.<\/p>\n
Mr Collins, who is representing all 36 defendants, told a court that none of his clients’ media reports had identified Pell or the charges he had faced.<\/p>\n
“They didn’t reference the cardinal – just referred to the fact that there was a broader story that could not be told,” Mr Collins said, according to Reuters.<\/p>\n
He added that the defendants were “not fringe players” but rather mainstream news organisations with no history of breaching court orders.<\/p>\n
Prosecutors alleged that local media coverage had “aided and betted the overseas media’s contempt”. Outlets outside Australian jurisdiction are not facing legal action.<\/p>\n
Judge John Dixon said he was still to decide the whether case should involve one or 36 trials, or “something in between”.<\/p>\n
The hearing was adjourned until 26 June.<\/p>\n
The case follows much debate in Australia over the effectiveness of suppression orders in the internet age.<\/p>\n
Source: bbc.co.uk<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"