Apr 10, 2014

How the media fingered a star paedophile — and prejudiced his case

Without the media, it's likely Robert Hughes would never have had to face a court. But because of the media, his lawyer is arguing he could never have had a fair trial.

Myriam Robin — Media Reporter

Myriam Robin

Media Reporter

In the vexed media firestorm that preceded the real trial, Hey Dad star Robert Hughes (pictured), convicted this week of sexually assaulting three girls in the 1980s, was painted as a monster before he ever took the stand, his lawyer Greg Walsh argues. Questions of prejudicial coverage and its effect on juries are going to be a key plank of the appeal. Walsh has plenty of material. He told Crikey he spent months researching the coverage, filing "six or seven" volumes of it to the New South Wales Supreme Court. He's concerned with much that was reported before his client was charged, and what happened during the trial. Justice Peter Zahra shot down many of Walsh's requests for the charges to be dismissed on grounds of prejudicial coverage. But he did say he would refer Mamamia to the Attorney-General's Department over a piece published on March 6 (during the trial) that made comments like: "Hughes has not been convicted ... yet" and "Hughes moonlighted as a sexual predator". Media ethicist Denis Muller, when alerted to the contents of the Mamamia article (since taken down), says it's one of the most shockingly prejudicial pieces of reporting he's seen in recent years. But it's far from the only one on Walsh's list. Before the media forced the police to act, there were plenty of rumours about Hughes. In 2010, Woman's Day broke the story, carrying allegations of the abuse by Hey Dad cast member Sarah Monahan in 2010. That original story didn't name Hughes but said the abuser had been involved with the show. Editor-in-chief Fiona Connolly says this was done on legal advice, and because the magazine didn't want to prejudice the legal process. "We didn't go into that story lightly," she told Crikey. "Sarah Monahan didn't land on our lap. We checked her story for several months before we ran with it ... And because she told her story, a great deal of good came of it ... Other victims came forward, and without that Robert Hughes would never have been convicted. " When the original story was published, it unleashed a flood. A Current Affair's coverage, which named Hughes a few days after the Woman's Day story, tracked him down in Singapore, knocking on his car window to extract a denial (a surefire way to make anyone look guilty). ACA also unearthed several more victims and did much to keep the story alive, even though rival Today Tonight wouldn't touch it. The stories were highly publicised -- but does that mean the media did the wrong thing? Speaking generally, Mueller doesn't think so. Victims of sexual offences are often in a powerless position, he says. The media can act as an important alternative to standard police investigations. "If victims felt able to go to the media but not to the police at first, well, then they've been given an opportunity for justice they might not have had otherwise," he said. And anyway, giving the rich and famous a free pass because they're rich and famous is hardly fair, adds the University of Melbourne's Jacqueline Horan -- an expert on juries.
"[The jury] would have seen the reports. The Daily Telegraph called him a heinous paedophile."
It's not the first time the media has opened up a case of this type. In 2001, Andrew Rule, then writing in The Age, bought to light allegations of sexual abuse committed by then-Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission chair Geoff Clark. His narrative-driven expose, vigorously defended by then-editor Michael Gawenda, was controversial at the time. After significant care was taken in checking the women's stories, the final pieces covered the allegations as fact rather than just one side of a story, leading to fears it made it impossible for Clark to get a fair trial. Six years later, one of the women won a civil case against Clark. Sometimes trials are moved or not held in front of juries entirely for fear of prejudice. But generally speaking, the legal system operates on the principle that juries can put aside everything they've read prior to the trial starting, even though some experts say this is practically impossible. Walsh argues Hughes' jury was prejudiced before they ever entered the courtroom. Will this play in the appeal? One legal expert Crikey spoke to, who declined to be named, was sceptical, but Horan says the way such media coverage is treated varies greatly between judges and jurisdictions. "The basic case law is that it has to be extreme prejudice," she said. But with the internet making damaging coverage easier than ever to access -- and harder to cordon off geographically -- it's not clear what this means now. David Rolph, an associate professor at the University of Sydney, says the tone of the coverage changed when Hughes was charged, and again when he was convicted. "Arrest and charge is the bright red line," he told Crikey. "The legal system tries to strike a balance between freedom of the press and the right to a fair trial. It treats arrest and charge as the defining moment. Of course, the media can write lots of prejudicial stuff before that, subject to the laws of defamation. But if you constrain the media before the charge, what if a person is never arrested?" Walsh concedes the media has a role to play in cases like this. But he argues it's a matter of degree. In this case, he says the reporting was so prejudicial and so overwhelming that there was no way Hughes could have got a fair trial. "The media have a job to do, and it’s a fundamentally important one," he said. "I'm not trying to blame the media per se. But [the jury] would have seen the reports. The Daily Telegraph called him a heinous paedophile." Faced with this, Walsh says, there's no way the jury were impartial when they went into the case. It's the argument he made last time, and he'll make it again in his appeal.

Free Trial

You've hit members-only content.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions


Leave a comment

7 thoughts on “How the media fingered a star paedophile — and prejudiced his case

  1. Graeski

    I don’t believe that the media chooses to pursue these cases out of any interest in justice or the redress of victims: I think they are motivated by their pursuit of ratings. Which, to my mind, makes them morally part of the crime, not part of retribution.

  2. Chris Hartwell

    The presumption of innocence until such is dispelled by evidence – that is the keystone of our legal system. That accusation against you of a crime being committed must be proven through evidence is the basis for a just system.

    The media may well have prevented this from being the case with their coverage. Now it needs to be proven by evidence.

  3. Thteribl

    At this point one needs to bring to mind what the mass media did to Lindy Chamberlain and how her false imprisonment was only reversed when the Northern Territory Government was subjected to a regime change.

  4. Hoojakafoopy

    I don’t read The Daily Telegraph, nor Woman’s Day, nor Mamamia, and I don’t watch A Current Affair. In that respect, I’m sure there are millions of other potential jurors out there with a media diet like mine.

    Even if I had read or seen these prejudicial reports, I’m sure the attention to evidence required by the court would subsume any influence they might have over the conclusions I would draw as a juror.

    Perhaps the greater prejudice is to think that ‘the media’ has the reach or the influence to significantly affect the deliberations of a jury, beyond the various biases that the experience of life casts upon any individual.

  5. TheFamousEccles

    I think that there is a valid point. I also don’t read the Daily Telegraph, Woman’s Day nor watch A Current Affair (in fact I don’t read newspapers and rarely watch commercial news bulletins – I read my news from the internet and various aggregators), yet if you were to ask me at any stage over the past few years “who is Robert Hughes?” my answer would likely contain a reference to him being an alleged paedophile. Were I a potential juror on this trial surely this mind-set would be prejudicial?

    Yes, the attention to evidence required should overtake any influence reportage from the press might have, but if someone as selective of their new sources as myself is potentially prejudiced, how might someone who actually reads the gutter press/foot-in-the-door current affairs without discernment sift the truth from the schlock?

  6. PDGFD1

    Chris @2…(and others)

    “…That accusation against you of a crime being committed must be proven through evidence is the basis for a just system. The media may well have prevented this from being the case with their coverage. Now it needs to be proven by evidence….”

    The evidence HAS been heard, and the prosecution case HAS been proven.

    There is obviously no reasonable doubt in this case. How many people have to give evidence against a person behaving like this before over-zealous, stupidly ambitious lawyers refuse to run an appeal supporting one so entirely morally bankrupt?
    Yes, I know… everyone one is entitled to a vigorous defense, but Hughes definately had one.
    An appeal on the basis that jurors can’t separate TV rubbish from evidence? Seriously? Enough court time wasted on this particular miscreant!

    On this note:-
    I’m fed up with the legal profession angling ‘backstage’ for juries to be done away with – their view is that many are to stupid to ‘follow’ legal argument and evidence presented. T’is true… from their own mouths I tell you… and they want to bring in televised courts as a general rule as well. Both a very bad idea! The practice of law is more about processes that favour the practitioners, and far less about getting to either the truth, or dispensing justice.

    Juries make lawyers produce clear argument The lack of cameras means less ‘posturing’ and career-grooming (lord knows there is more than enough of that as it is, as anyone who attends court will tell you).

    This jury made up their mind, and I for one believe they had the good sense, and sufficient intelligence to come to the correct conclusion despite what media coverage there was of the facts.

  7. Chris Hartwell

    PDGFD1 – I meant the accusation that the media tainted the result would also need to be proven with evidence. In the absence of evidence, the null hypothesis reigns (ie, no media tainting)

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details