Media lawyers have called for more information from prosecutors about the contempt of court charges against 36 news organisations, journalists and editors facing jail time and fines for their reporting of the Cardinal George Pell trial.

None of those facing charges appeared at Melbourne’s William Cooper Justice Centre on Monday, with all represented by media lawyers Justin Quill and Matt Collins QC. When Pell’s guilty verdict was delivered in December it was suppressed and not immediately able to be reported, because at the time Pell was facing a second trial and there was concern jurors in the second trial would be prejudiced by reporting of the first.

Some international news organisations published articles about Pell’s conviction, although their reporters were not in court. Some Australian media ran stories that alluded to the case, but without naming Pell. Some of them lamented the overuse of suppression orders in Australian courts.

Among those facing contempt charges are the Herald Sun editor, Damon Johnston, several other News Corp publications, Nine Entertainment Co, the Age, the Australian Financial Review and Macquarie Media. Many of them have been accused of “scandalising the court” in their reporting, and “aiding and abetting” the contempt of overseas media organisations.

Collins told the court the charges against his media clients lacked detail and were therefore difficult to respond to. He said the dates on which the contempt was alleged to have occurred were vague, with prosectors referring only to a date range between 11 and 18 December.

“We just have an allegation and a date range,” he told Justice John Dixon.

He said the “gravest problem” with the case, brought by the director of public prosecutions, was that the charges had been described in a “rolled up way” and that specific examples of breaches, and the dates of those breaches, had not been detailed. Due to the severity of the charges and potential penalties, he asked prosecutors to provide a more detailed statement of claim to the defence.

“The proceedings raise very serious allegations … as serious as it gets in terms of convictions, fines and in terms of imprisonment,” Collins said. “These are not garden variety contempt charges.”

He said he could find no precedence for similar charges and penalties in Australian law.

The prosecutor, Stephen O’Meara QC, expressed frustration that the defence had waited until Monday’s hearing to ask for more details about the allegations. He accused Collins of being “slightly underprepared” for the case.

Prosecutors agreed to a more comprehensive statement of claim, which will be provided to the court by 20 May. The defence was ordered to file its response to that statement by 21 June. The case will next return to the court on 26 June.