A superior court exercising its inherent jurisdiction to protect the right to a fair trial may make orders suppressing publication of extrinsic material (not limited to court proceedings), but such orders must be directed at specific parties rather than purporting to bind every person in the jurisdiction. Persons with knowledge of such orders who deliberately frustrate their effect may be liable for contempt. The contemporaneous broadcast of a docu-drama depicting events and persons directly relevant to a pending criminal trial creates a qualitatively different risk of prejudice from ordinary pre-trial publicity, which cannot be adequately managed by judicial directions to the jury.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 21 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 21 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.