Twenty-one separate publications, six corporate groups and 19 individual journalists charged with breaching a suppression order during the George Pell trial in 2018 will face a single, but complex, trial in November.
Pell was acquitted of all charges by the high court on appeal in April.
At a case management hearing on Wednesday, Justice John Dixon heard the prosecution and the defence could not agree which documents should be supplied to each other.
Barrister Matthew Collins QC, appearing for the media, told the judge one of the respondents was incorrectly named due to the complexity of media corporate structures.
Despite the appointment of former federal judge Raymond Finkelstein as a mediator in July, the discovery process is far from over and Dixon said he will rule on the dispute at the next hearing, at a date yet to be set.
The suppression was imposed by the Victorian county court to prevent “a real and substantial risk of prejudice to the proper administration of justice” because Pell was facing a second trial on separate charges.
But numerous publications referred to the verdict, without naming Pell, before the suppression order was lifted.
Melbourne’s hometown tabloid, the Herald Sun, published the most dramatic piece: a black front page with the word CENSORED in large white letters. “The world is reading a very important story that is relevant to Victorians,” the page one editorial said.
“The Herald Sun is prevented from publishing details of this very significant news. But trust us, it’s a story you deserve to read.”
The prosecutor, Kerri Judd QC, is pursuing contempt of court convictions against media including News Corp editors Sam Weir and Ben English, Australian Financial Review editor in chief Michael Stutchbury, the editor of the Sydney Morning Herald Lisa Davies, Nine Entertainment broadcasters Chris Smith, Deborah Knight and Christine Ahern, former Age editor Alex Lavelle and Age investigative journalist Michael Bachelard.
The corporations named on the respondent list include the Herald and Weekly Times, Nationwide News, Nine Entertainment, Advertiser Newspapers, Allure Media and Mamamia.com.au.
Dixon has already determined that the trial should go ahead in November, and it is likely to be heard remotely due to Covid-19 restrictions.
Lisa De Ferrari SC, acting for the office of public prosecutions, argued that the media should be compelled to provide internal emails between journalists and editors.
But Collins disagreed, saying the correspondence might remove their right not to be incriminated.
A request by the defence for any internal documents sent by Judd was requested on the grounds it may reveal why the second prosecution of Pell was discontinued.
But De Ferrari said the request was a “slur” on the prosecution because if there were any relevant documents she would have supplied them already.
Much of the disagreement is over which respondent is responsible for publishing and whether reporters and website editors knew there was a suppression order and whether they can be held liable.
Victorian prosecutors originally asked the court to find 100 respondents guilty of contempt on the basis that publishing when there was a suppression order had the effect of “scandalising the court”.
But 28 charges were dropped by Judd in February, including against reporters associated with the Age, Brisbane Times and WA Today.
The second trial Pell was facing was dropped on 26 February 2019, owing to a lack of admissible evidence, allowing the suppression order to be lifted.
