Table of Contents
The fallout from harbourside mansion prima donna Lisa Wilkinson shooting off her oversized, overpaid gob continues. To recap: Wilkinson used her speech at the Logies (Australia’s bargain-basement, hick regional version of the Golden Globes) to sound off on a high-profile rape case that is currently before the court. In direct response to Wilkinson’s big mouth, an ACT Supreme Court justice delayed the trial, stating that, “The importance of the rule of law has been set at nil.”
The big question now is whether or not Wilkinson will face contempt charges. After all, higher figures than an ageing Boomer gossip journalist have been belted with contempt proceedings, for saying less.
In the mid-80s, then NSW premier Neville Wran was asked at a press conference about the trial of his close friend, Lionel Murphy, for allegedly attempting to pervert the course of justice. Wran, off-the-cuff, remarked that, “I have a deep conviction that Mr Justice Murphy is innocent of any wrongdoing.”
Giving oral evidence, Wran said he had no conscious intention to interfere with justice, only to defend his close friend. Wran told the court that had he remained silent it would have appeared as if he were distancing himself from his best friend. Giving evidence, Wran said he wasn’t thinking about whether a comment would interfere with a fair trial, “and when I think about it now, what I said … would have had as much impact upon … a fair trial as a snowflake in a furnace”.
The court took a different view. Wran was fined $25,000 ($65,000 in today’s money). The owners of The Daily Telegraph were fined $200,000 (half a mill today) for publishing the remarks.
It didn’t matter that Wran made an off-the-cuff remark. It didn’t matter that Wran was speaking about his belief that Murphy was innocent: statements as to innocence can equally fall within the prohibition as statements about guilt. It didn’t matter that Wran had no intention to interfere with a fair trial.
And so we come to 2022, and a preening media princess likewise commenting on a matter currently before the courts. ACT Supreme Court Justice Lucy McCallum said that, because of Wilkinson’s comments, “the distinction between an allegation and a finding of guilt has been completely obliterated”. Somewhat tougher words than the judgement which pinged Nifty Neville.
Under ACT law, it is a criminal offence to “publish something that could cause a miscarriage of justice”. Not “did” — “could”. Depending on intentionality or recklessness, it carries a penalty up to 10 years in jail or a $160,000 fine — or both.
Senior lawyers have told The Australian that what Wilkinson did is arguably much worse than what Wran did. Consider and contrast the evidence about Wilkinson and Wran. First, Wilkinson’s comments were planned. She read from a piece of paper. Second, prior to the Logies, she told ACT DPP Shane Drumgold that any speech she gave would be broadcast by Channel 9, the rival network that carried the Logies event. In other words, Wilkinson knew her comments would be published widely across the country. Third, Wilkinson knew the dangers of interfering with the administration of justice; she warned others by tweeting about the danger on August 6, 2021. Fourth, Wilkinson spoke with Drumgold in advance about her possible speech, with Drumgold warning her but refusing to act as a “speech editor”. Fifth, it is not unreasonable to surmise Wilkinson had an obvious interest in securing a conviction against Bruce Lehrmann, the man accused of rape by Brittany Higgins.
After all, a guilty verdict would vindicate Wilkinson’s reporting — for which she won the Logie that was the occasion of the troublesome speech.
On the other hand, a not guilty verdict would raise damning questions about Wilkinson’s work: why a man’s reputation and life was wrecked by a trial-by-media and whether his accuser lied.
Tangling the matter further is the DPP’s conversation with Wilkinson over the matter, prior to her speech. This means that he could be a witness in any prosecution of Wilkinson that he orders.
Trial by media of alleged sexual assault cases has become open slather in the past few years, pursued by those who think their cause is above the presumption of innocence. Media witch hunts, relying on the scantest of evidence, have ruined lives.
There is a sure-fire way to stop this damaging zealotry. Prosecute those who interfere with the administration of justice. That will force the media vigilantes to pull their heads in.
The Australian
If nothing else, Wilkinson seems to have earned the contempt of her colleagues.
Reliable witnesses present have told us that there was an audible groan from key members of the Nine contingent as soon as Wilkinson was announced as the award’s winner. Indeed, we’re told that one prominent Nine personality was heard to remark sardonically: “We’re about to get a sermon.”
In the days since, there have been other clear signs that Nine is keen to delete Wilkinson from its corporate memory.
The Australian
Nine has deleted Wilkinson’s speech from all publicly available versions of the Logies broadcast. Wilkinson is “taking a break” from The Project’s on-air panel for at least the next three weeks.
If I ever watched The Project, I’m sure I’d be greatly relieved.
