0/5

Derryn Hinch fined $100,000 for contempt but avoids jail

Derryn Hinch has been fined $100,000 for contempt of court after breaching a suppression order, but avoided a jail sentence.

dhiDerryn Hinch has been fined $100,000 for contempt of court after breaching a suppression order, but avoided a jail sentence.

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Kaye said the Seven News broadcaster was “grossly irresponsible” when revealing details of Jill Meagher’s killer, Adrian Ernest Bayley’s past criminal history on his website.

He considered him an experienced journalist who showed complete disregard for the suppression orders and that he was a repeat offender.

“Your conduct was calculated to undermine the administration of justice in this State,” the judge said.

“You are a self-opinionated person who finds it very difficult to apologise.”

He said he was satisfied Hinch was not genuinely remorseful for his conduct.

Hinch, who earns $212,000 a year, was told him if he failed to pay the fine within 90 days he would be jailed for 50 days.

It’s not Hinch’s first brush with the law.

He served five months of home detention in 2012 for breaching suppression orders by naming two sex offenders at a rally on the steps of State Parliament in 2008.

In 1987 he spent 12 days in jail and was fined $10,000 for publicly naming a paedophile priest who was on trial.

Hinch has been in Japan on assignment for Channel Seven.

Source: The Age , ABC

14 Responses

  1. people don’t realise that he could have jeopardised this case. the police say every time when there a murder or a big court case. not say anything on social media or blogs for the reason. he isn’t above the law.

  2. Hinch should do the time. It would not be the first time that idiots like him have seen animals like Bayley walk free because they couldn’t get a (perceived) fair trial.
    He’s the same league as Alan Jones.

  3. Well at least someone had the guts to reveal what that scumbag did because the parole board were just happy to let him onto our streets.

    100,000 is a very big fine though. But he didnt deserve jail. Not when there are scum out there who do a more serious crime and get off.

  4. @Dalmanic….I would be happy for all human rights withdrawn for a rapist/murderer… Once they are convicted and not before.

    How can they be allowed any human rights, when they are clearly not human.

    However lets not break any rules on the way that endanger the conviction eh?

    Hinch was a bit of a tool on this occasion. I like the sentiment, but not the dumb way it was projected

  5. Gosh, we wouldn’t want to tread on the rights of a rapist murderer would we?

    Tough luck Jill, that you ran into that scumbag.

    I admire Derryn Hinch!

  6. Hinch shows a complete lack of respect for the law – regardless of what he agrees with, he must still follow the same law that applies to every other individual or media outlet.

    The reason the suppression orders are used, is that the past history of an offender is not necessarily directly relevant to the current case being decided by a jury. Once the jury gives their verdict, of course the past offences and criminal history are taken into account for sentencing, but these rules are in place to ensure that the jury does not come to a conclusion purely based on one’s past or the similarity between the offences.

    Hinch himself was very lucky in this instance considering his own past history of these offences.

  7. I have contempt for the law, and greater contempt for those that practice within it.

    Here’s just another example:
    couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/more-controversy-for-judge-sarah-bradley-as-freed-rapist-allegedly-attacks-same-victim-again/story-fnihsrf2-1226742028200

  8. OK under current rules it is up to the prosecution to prove that a person is guilty of a crime regardless of previous. The previous is taken into account at the time of sentencing.

    Imagine if Bayley had got off on a technicality cos this blokes ego could not prevent him from opening his mouth. Would folk be so quick to support him then?
    We have all got to stick to the rules to ensure that justice is done and grubs like Bayley get locked away.

    Once the case has gone through court and justice has been dispensed, sure lay into the system that let him back out on the street.

    I would have liked a much more barbaric sentence for bayley, but you just have to accept the system we have.

  9. Bayley had a criminal history. What Derryn did was absolutely the right thing. Just like naming two sex offenders and the paedophile priest. “grossly irresponsible” – how? The so-called “justice system” has shown itself to be out of touch with these absurd “supression orders”, designed to protect the crims and put the community at risk.

  10. Was Hinch undermining the administration of Justice?

    Or was he just pointing out the nonsense that justice system gets up to and lengths it will go to try and cover up its mistakes?

    At some point they are going to have to accept that the internet has been invented and that court enforced ignorance is stupid, and unobtainable.

Leave a Reply