Australian Journalists Face Trial Over Cardinal Pell Sex Abuse Case

With Australia's government clamping down on journalists for revealing state secrets to spy on citizens and alleged war crimes by its soldiers in Afghanistan, 30 editors, reporters and media organizations face trial for reporting details of Cardinal George Pell's 2018 child sex abuse conviction that was voided on appeal.

A Melbourne court had banned media revealing facts in the case despite arguments it was of compelling public interest and right to know but the journalists and media outlets face charges of contempt of court for allegedly breaching that order, reported Deutsche Welle.

The court had issued a gag order to keep the proceedings secret although the story was a worldwide sensation, akin to The Boston Globe Spotlight team's Pulitzer Prize winning accounts of sex abuse in the Catholic Church in that city.

The case was getting "long in the tooth" and so should go to trial this year if possible, said Victorian Supreme Court Justice John Dixon, who set Nov. 9 as a "tentative" date the report also added.

Cardinal Pell was convicted in 2018 for sexual abuse of two boys in Melbourne in the 1990's but the court said it didn't want the appeal influenced by reports of the case with reporters prohibited from even mentioning his name or conviction that had already been plastered all over the media and news sites.

Some media outlets responded by writing stories complaining they were being prevented from reporting on a story of overarching public interest but were accused of breaching the order and “scandalizing the court.”

If convicted, the journalists face prison terms of up to five years and the media organizations fines of up to AU$500,000 ($328,000, €300,000) with attorney Matt Collins, representing the defendants, telling the court journalists want it resolved.

"They have had these matters hanging over their heads for far too long," he said, arguing against a single trial for all the accused as prosecutor want. He said it would be an "injustice" for journalists from competing media to be tried simultaneously, arguing that such allegations "would never be heard together" ordinarily.

The targeted news organizations, including Media mogul Rupert Murdoch's news outlets, have fought back against the charges and some defendants were dropped earlier this year while media freedom and civil liberties groups complained of overuse of gag orders.

The suppression order meant that publishing details of the Pell trial was banned "within all states and territories of Australia and on any website or other electronic or broadcast format accessible within Australia.”

Some major international news websites such as that of The Washington Post and the New York-based Daily Beast did publish news of the guilty verdict, but many articles were taken down once the suppression order became apparent although it wasn't clear how an Australian court order would have any standing against them.

Deutsche Welle didn't report the verdict because of the order although Andrew Kenyon, a law professor at the University of Melbourne, told the news site that "the international reach of suppression orders is a difficult issue,” the media outlet not explaining why it obeyed a likely dubious order.

"It is not likely that the order would be enforceable against an international media entity," Kenyon said. "But one that had an office in Australia might be made subject to the order more easily."