STOPPED reading after that point because the rest is rubbish ... the court case is currently active and any documentation pertaining to it would be forbidden to be shared outside of the parties involved (i.e cannot be shared with the media), else it could impact the outcome of the case.
Pretty sure
@Deathspell will have something to say on that part.
This upstart journalist has been watching too many re-runs of Matlock.
From the time the 'First Directions Hearing' or 'Further Directions Hearing' commence,up until all court proceedings are finished and dealt with it,the case is said to be
'sub judice' (under judgment) and when a case is sub judice,reporters are strictly limited as to what they can report.It is an offense and committing contempt,if a reporter discloses and reports on court documentation or statements before a verdict has been read.Many reporters have been fined and received fixed penal sentences for reporting material under sub judice.If the nature of the contempt has had an any adverse reaction on any of the parties,the judge might issue a court order,that the reporter 'purges his contempt'.This means that until they make a public apology,retract their statements and identify the confidential source of information (if there is one),he may be gaoled for as long as the judge wishes.
Even though there is no jury and what is published or broadcast is not so likely to prejudice a fair trial,since the judge is required to ignore it,nevertheless,even in trials without juries there are limits to what is tolerated,as to not interfere with the proper course of justice.
Legal Counsel would have filed and put all relevant documents and statements under injunction.To avoid any misrepresentation,they would have applied for a judicial writ (an
'order of mandamus') to the Supreme Court,to command the First Directions Hearings to secure statutory duty.The writ instruction of
'Qui non prohibet id quod prohibere potest assentire videtur' (he who does not forbid what he is able to prevent,is deemed to assent) will allow them to carefully vet any adverse documentation or statements being used outside the court prior judgement.Grounds for obtaining the writ is to safeguard any damages and impact on Canterbury,which is a corporation based on paid membership and sponsorship.
Another common course of action,is to ask the court to hear evidence '
in camera' (in the room-in private).No reporters or other members of the public are allowed into the courtroom or the judge's chambers while that evidence is heard.If somehow someone manages to find out what was said,they are not allowed to publish or broadcast it.
The Defamation Act 2005,covers the law concerned with court reporting and any publication by the media.The law gives protection to reporters of what is said in court only,because the court's material and reports are carefully written and protected from defamation and can be safely reported upon.This reporter will not be afforded this protection (called privilege) since he is reporting on non court material and reports but on viewed documents before or during the court proceedings before judgement.There is little room for interpretive or creative reporting of court cases prior judgement.
If I was representing the Bulldogs,I swear his grandchildren will still be paying long after he turns to dust,after I sue him.I would contest that he acted with freedom of interference in violating jurisprudence and the laws of contempt.Maintenance,reputation and dignity of the Club has been compromised and is effecting membership.I would also argue that this gutter type prejudicial court reporting has not been neutral,whilst still awaiting judgement and has had an adverse reaction on club's investment,to wit the players worth $9.1m.Whilst these court proceedings are active,I'll attack his livelihood and put him in an ethical dilemma.I will make an application to a commission of inquiry (I intend to drag the court proceedings and test his resolve), subpoena the reporter to appear and ask for the source of his information and who afforded it to him.As far as the law is concerned,the reporter has no choice but to answer (and answer he fucking will).So he's left with a choice,will his professional ethics take priority over the demands of the law and go to gaol.Once the commission issues it's verdict,I'll get another reporter to attack his unprofessional demand,unprofessional ethics and lack of promise of confidentiality.
I'll put in an application for conflict of interests for Dib,as there is no way on this planet I'll save his arse.
Des legal Counsel would also be concerned by irresponsible reporting as it could lead to disobeying a subpoena.Certain people because of circumstance or club loyalty might not attend court to give evidence,even though they are willing to be in contempt of court.Another problem could arise if people the journalists have interviewed,may also be the witnesses in the court case.This would allow the club's Counsel to diminish their evidence in court if contradiction occurs.
In practice reporters can only report or broadcast details on the background of the case and details of what is officially happening within the legal process of the actual court proceedings or mention some details which are not likely to be contested in court.
In a civil lawsuit details of unpresented information or statements exhibited by both parties,that are likely to be contested in court and the civil defendant's (Bulldog's) or the civil plaintiff (Des commonly known as 'shithead') commercial record cannot be published until judgement.
Under the Federal Court Rules,the media may apply to the Court for leave to inspect but not report on any “
restricted” documents.Permission will only be granted if the documents (or relevant parts of) and exhibits have already been admitted into evidence or read out in open court.In the case of partially read documents,the court can refuse access to a document on the basis that other parts of the document are irrelevant to the case,but of sensitive nature and it would be unduly burdensome for Court staff to provide a redacted version of the document,showing only those parts that are in evidence or have been read out.
The media can inspect “
unrestricted” Court documents,subject to certain exceptions,including where the Court has ordered the documents are confidential,forbidden from or restricted from publication under Federal Court Rules 2011 and suppressed or prohibited or restricted from publication on grounds permitted in Part V of the Federal Court Australia Act 1976.
Unrestricted documents include: originating application or cross claim,particulars of a pleading (Statement of Claim) or Defense,notices (appeal,discontinuance,change of legal representation or ceasing to act and address for service),agreed statement of facts,interlocutory application and an order of the Court (judgement) and reasons for. Affidavit accompanying an application, or an amended application,under section 61 of the native Title Act 1993 (not relevant,unless Des can prove aboriginal antecedents and is claiming Belmore on behalf of the halfwit tribe).
Restricted documents include: exhibits,list of documents given on discovery,subpoenas or documents lodged with the Registry in answer to a subpoena for production of documents,affidavits (other than an affidavit accompanying an application),written submissions or a written outline of submissions,evidence taken on deposition and interrogatories or answers to interrogatories, admissions and unsworn statements of evidence filed in accordance with a direction given by the Court.