Restraining 'Extraneous' Prejudicial Publicity: Victoria and New South Wales Compared

35 Pages Posted: 28 Jun 2019 Last revised: 4 Jul 2019

See all articles by Jason John Bosland

Jason John Bosland

University of Melbourne; University of Melbourne - Centre for Media and Communications Law

Date Written: 2018

Abstract

This article explores the powers available to courts in Victoria and New South Wales to restrain the media publication of ‘extraneous’ prejudicial material – that is, material that is derived from sources extraneous to court proceedings rather than from the proceedings themselves. Three sources of power are explored: the power in equity to grant injunctions to restrain threatened sub judice contempt, the inherent jurisdiction of superior courts and, finally, statutory powers in New South Wales under the Court Suppression and Non-publications Orders Act 2010 (NSW) and in Victoria under the Open Courts Act 2013 (Vic). It argues that the approach of the Victorian courts is much broader in terms of the scope and application of orders, which potentially explains why orders restraining extraneous material are more commonly made in Victoria than in New South Wales. It further argues that the Victorian approach presents some significant consequences for publishers.

Keywords: prejudicial information, judicial proceedings, courts

JEL Classification: K49

Suggested Citation

Bosland, Jason John, Restraining 'Extraneous' Prejudicial Publicity: Victoria and New South Wales Compared (2018). University of New South Wales Law Journal, Vol. 41, No. 4, 2018; U of Melbourne Legal Studies Research Paper, No. 827. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3410647

Jason John Bosland (Contact Author)

University of Melbourne ( email )

185 Pelham Street
Carlton, Victoria 3053
Australia

University of Melbourne - Centre for Media and Communications Law ( email )

Victoria 3010
Australia

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
13
Abstract Views
143
PlumX Metrics