As many as 100 journalists have been threatened with a charge of contempt of court – and could face possible jail terms – over reporting of the Cardinal George Pell trial.

Victoria’s director of public prosecutions, Kerri Judd QC, has written to as many as 100 individual publishers, editors, broadcasters, reporters and subeditors at the media giants News Corp Australia, Nine Entertainment, the ABC, Crikey and several smaller publications, accusing them of breaching a nationwide suppression order imposed during the case. Nine’s Melbourne masthead The Age alone received more than 30 letters.

Letters were sent to the journalists in early February saying that they had potentially interfered with the administration of justice and scandalised the court.

The ones who do not have a strong enough explanation could be prosecuted.

The suppression order was issued by the chief judge of Melbourne’s county court, Peter Kidd, on 25 June 2018 in the matter of DPP v George Pell. The prosecution had applied for the suppression order to prevent “a real and substantial risk of prejudice to the proper administration of justice” because Pell originally was to face a second trial on separate charges.

But when the guilty verdict came down in December, some international media outlets – who were unlikely to have been in court – published or broadcast the news. These international outlets included the Daily Beast, the Washington Post and several Catholic websites.

“Cardinal George Pell has been found guilty in Australia of charges related to sexual abuse, according to two people familiar with the case and other media reports, becoming the highest-ranking Vatican official to face such a conviction,” the Washington Post reported on 12 December. Many of the articles were later removed.

A number of very important people in the media are facing, if found guilty, the prospect of imprisonment Peter Kidd, judge

Some local media followed suit, publishing articles which Kidd said raised a question of whether they were aimed at putting “inappropriate pressure on him” – even though these were vague and did not mention Pell’s name or the verdict.

The outlets which published or broadcast pieces in relation to the trial included the Herald Sun, the Age, Macquarie Media, Nine News in Melbourne, an ABC radio program outside Melbourne and News Corp’s the Australian. Private Media’s Crikey website published a wrap of how the newspapers covered the Pell verdict, with snapshots of the front pages. The small website alone received five letters from the DPP.

The Herald Sun published the most dramatic piece: a black front page with the word CENSORED in large white letters. “The world is reading a very important story that is relevant to Victorians,” the page one editorial said. “The Herald Sun is prevented from publishing details of this very significant news. But trust us, it’s a story you deserve to read.”

A group of eight court reporters who attended both Pell trials every day, who included journalists from Guardian Australia and ABC News, did not breach the suppression order.

Judd asked some recipients of the letter to reply by 15 February as to why they should not be charged with contempt of court. All the publications which referenced the Pell case, even obliquely, were targeted because there was a blanket suppression on any information about the case.

Some of the alleged breaches were considered to be more flagrant than others. As many as 30 people at the Herald Sun and the Age received letters – even those who were not involved or who were not working on the day.

When the judge was made aware of the breaches he told a closed court they were of a serious nature and certain editors faced imprisonment.

The local online articles were removed when editors read Kidd’s angry comments in a transcript sent to media outlets. Nine’s The Australian Financial Review, which published Kidd’s angry comments, also received two letters from the DPP.

Kidd told the court the publications had potentially breached the law, brought improper pressure upon the court and had committed a “potentially egregious and flagrant” contempt of court.

“A number of very important people in the media are facing, if found guilty, the prospect of imprisonment and indeed substantial imprisonment, and it may well be that many significant members of the media community are in that potential position,” Kidd said on 13 December.

Rival news organisations have been working together to respond to the charges. Lawyers for Nine’s the Age and News Corp’s the Herald Sun have prepared a joint response to the DPP, a source said.

Addressing Pell’s defence barrister, Robert Richter QC, Kidd said the media were “operating on a misinformed basis that it’s OK to print everything and anything apart from the name of your client”.

Pell arrives at court in May 2018. Photograph: Darrian Traynor/Getty Images

Discussing the Herald Sun report, Richter said although Pell’s name was not mentioned, the reference to “a very prominent Australian figure” meant the “connection cannot fail to be made”.

“I am told it was on Wikipedia last night – I haven’t seen that but it was apparently removed this morning – and so it really is a matter for showing cause if there is one,” Richter said.

Kidd said he believed some of the articles were designed to put pressure on the court, a tactic he labelled “breathtaking”.

The Age reported after the suppression order was lifted on Tuesday that its lawyer Justin Quill was representing 53 media clients including those at The Age.

Quill wrote to the DPP saying that the ‘‘virtually identical’’ letters had distressed the staff, represented a scattergun approach and were ‘‘inappropriate and disturbing’’.

‘‘It is difficult to understand your letters as anything other than a concerted and strategic attack on the media, rather than an upholding of the law,” Quill wrote.

A spokeswoman for Nine Entertainment said Quill was representing all the Nine outlets, News Corp and smaller websites like Mamamia. “Like a large number of media outlets, we received these letters,” she said. “We deny all the allegations made by the DPP.”

The Melbourne broadcaster Jon Faine, who has not been sent a letter, mentioned the suppression order on his ABC program this month without referring to the specifics of the case.

Faine said when suppression orders were “properly used” any breaches must be prosecuted.

“This week, a large number – I am told 70 – media outlets and journalists across Australia and some overseas – including sadly one ABC program – have been asked to show cause why they ought not be proceeded against for a clear breach of a suppression order from one of our courts.

“Editors and publishers as well as journalists could well go to jail. This mass prosecution could lead to a test of the powers of the courts in the digital age, to control the flow of information that can interfere with the administration of justice.



“Judge-alone trials – instead of juries – in publicity sensitive matters are part of the answer and must be adopted urgently.”

• On 28 February 2019 this article was amended to remove CNN as one of the news organisations that published the Pell verdict in December.