Media outlets ‘tripped over a lot of rules’ in frenzy of mushroom murder trial
The media frenzy around the Erin Patterson mushroom murder trial led to an unprecedented wave of legal rule breaking in both established and informal media.
On Monday afternoon, the jury in the trial found Patterson guilty on three counts of murder and one of attempted murder after she served guests at a lunch of Beef Wellingtons laced with death cap mushrooms. Now the verdict is in, many details of the alleged breaches of court reporting law can be reported.
Probably the highest-profile case involves Kyle Sandilands and the Kiis FM’s Kyle and Jackie O Show on June 16, in the middle of Patterson’s trial.
According to The Guardian, which retained a copy of the now-edited show, Sandilands disparaged Patterson’s appearance, calling her a “big lump”, discussing evidence and strongly implying she was guilty.
“But the rest of us already know … you can tell by looking at her, just lock that bitch up,” Sandilands reportedly said.
Hannah Marshall, founder and principal of Good Company Law, told Mumbrella that both Sandilands and the corporate entity that owns Kiis FM — ARN — could be held responsible.
“There’s no basis for a presenter or a journalist to avoid liability just by pointing to the corporate entity which sits behind them,” Marshall said.
“In contempt proceedings, the question is whether there is a real tendency to prejudice the trial. Had they just commented ‘I think she’s guilty’ that would be potentially less serious than a case where they’ve actually discussed the evidence,” she said. “Kyle actually went so far as misreport the evidence … in those situations there is a much greater tendency to impact the trial.”
The trial’s judge, Justice Christopher Beale, referred the matter to the Office of Public Prosecutions after viewing a transcript from the show.
Media attention on the trial reached fever pitch, including international headlines, multiple chart-topping daily podcasts, and live news blogs reporting intricate details of the daily court proceedings.
The ABC’s Mushroom Case Daily podcast was also caught up, after being accused of breaching a suppression order for naming certain witnesses in an episode. The episode in question was live on various platforms for 24 hours and had been downloaded by tens of thousands of listeners, before being removed. A Crikey story referencing the “media circus” surrounding the trial, as well as content from Mamamia and Channel 10, were also warned about elements of their reporting. Social media influencer and commentator Constance Hall also revealed to her audience that she was instructed to remove a post about the trial.
Michael Bradley, managing partner at Marque Lawyers, told Mumbrella the missteps of the media organisations involved could easily have been avoided, particularly because they should already know how to report ongoing criminal matters.
“None of this is new. Media companies should know all these things in their DNA. The governing principles around criminal justice and how it should and should not be reported are very old, but lots of things have gone wrong, and not just the independent media, but the mainstream media as well have tripped over a lot of the rules that they should have front and centre in their minds in terms of how you approach the reporting in an ongoing criminal matter,” he said.
Constance Hall
Bradley was largely unsympathetic to the challenges these outlets faced in covering this story, telling Mumbrella that suppression orders “are not hard to follow”.
“They’re either imposed by statute, or they’re imposed by court order and they’re all in literal terms. It’s incumbent on the organisations to be aware of what can be published and what cannot. And the sub judice rule that prevents speculation and trial by media while a criminal matter is in process is an ancient principle,” he said.
“The reality is not that the media’s forgotten any of this, it’s just been caught up in the rush. Cases like this attract eyeballs in the millions, and it’s all over social media, it’s a festival for podcasters, and the mainstream media doesn’t want to be left behind. And in that rush, they’ve ignored some of the basic principles. I don’t think any of it’s that complicated.”
The factual circumstances of the case, he said, “excited all of the worst instincts” of some outlets.
“It’s such a sensational, almost fictional sort of narrative, stranger than fiction, the kind of thing you’d normally expect to come from the US, rather than Australia. And it kind of feeds into that phenomenon that’s been building up over time with this sort of obsession with true crime, which is detached from reality. This is happening in real time, so it’s particularly problematic. I just think that’s why there’s been such a frenzy around this particular case – it ticks all the boxes for sensationalism.”
The story, however, proved popular with audiences, with more than 625,000 people listening to the ABC’s Mushroom Case Daily podcast in May, according to the Australian Podcast Ranker. In June, ABC’s head of audio on demand, Jessica Radburn, said the case had been captivating Australia and the world, and the national broadcaster had endeavoured to create a responsible and honest portrait of the trial as it unfolded.
The ABC’s Mushroom Case Daily podcast rated well
“Listeners are incredibly engaged with the show, with our team receiving hundreds of emails daily. I’m very proud that our team has been able to respond to this audience need and bring listeners as close to the court experience as possible,” she said.
Related Content
Broke the law..
There, fixed your headline for you