Analyse the following fictional scenario and discuss the potential for regulatory sanction and legal liability relating to privacy and various forms of contempt of court. Illustrate your discussion with reference to relevant examples and cases where possible.
John Strident is a well known political figure in Victoria who leads a campaign against gay marriage. Jack Hack, a journalist at the Daily Trumpet newspaper in Victoria hears a rumour that Strident is in a gay relationship. One night, Hack climbs over the back fence of Strident's home and films through a window. He captures video of Strident kissing his boyfriend. The next day, the Daily Trumpet runs still photos of the kiss in its print edition and the full video on its website. Strident's wife announces she is filing for a divorce. Strident accuses the newspaper of "a gratuitous and outrageous invasion" of his private life and says he will be consulting hislawyer.
A week later, a masked gunman shoots and kills Jack Hack. The police say they want to interview John Strident, telling then public not to approach him as they suspect he may be armed and dangerous. The Daily Trumpet reports this with a photo of Strident on its front page, headlined "Find this murderer!".
The next day, Strident walks into a police station. He is charged with murder and appears the next day in a Magistrates Court. The police oppose bail, telling the magistrate that Strident "has made full confessions". The court reporter for the Daily Trumpet sitting in court
tweets "Strident has made full confessions - Police". At the end of the hearing, the magistrate hears a request from Strident's lawyer that the police evidence about "full confessions" be suppressed. The magistrate agrees and issues a suppression order.
Nine months later, Strident is tried for murder and pleads ‘not guilty'. During the trial, a woman phones Radio X talkback and goes on air
saying "I'm a juror in that Strident case and he seems such a nice man. I really don't think he could have done this horrible killing".