However, Pell’s guilty verdict was published on major international news websites including The Washington Post and the New York-based Daily Beast and in Catholic newsletters, and went viral on social media, becoming the number one trending topic on Twitter in Australia – with thousands tweeting about it. Loading The Vatican’s website named Pell and detailed his conviction while his Wikipedia entry has shown details of his guilt for weeks. The Director of Public Prosecutions Kerri Judd, QC, this month sent more than 100 letters to reporters, editors and media organisations indicating journalists are likely to be prosecuted for breaching the suppression order, sub judice contempt, scandalising the court and aiding and abetting contempts by overseas media. The Office of Public Prosecutions said it would not respond to questions at this stage.

Journalists and senior staff at media outlets including The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Financial Review, Channel Nine, several radio stations, News Corp publications and Crikey face what County Court Chief Judge Peter Kidd described as ‘‘the prospect of imprisonment and indeed substantial imprisonment’’ if found guilty of contempt. A total of more than 30 journalists at mastheads and media outlets owned by Nine, including The Age, received notices in February from Ms Judd asking them to ‘‘show cause’’ as to why they should not be charged with contempt of court. The 32 show cause notices sent to journalists at The Age and other mastheads owned by Nine, which ask reporters and editors to explain why they should not be charged with contempt of court over a suppression order in the Pell matter they may be accused of breaking. Credit:The Age ‘‘It is my opinion that the above publication breaches the suppression order, has a definite and real tendency to interfere with the administration of justice and therefore constitutes sub judice contempt, is contemptuous by reason of it scandalising the Court, and aided and abetted contempts by overseas media,’’ Ms Judd wrote. ‘‘At present, I intend to institute proceedings for contempt against you.’’

In a response to Ms Judd, lawyer Justin Quill, who is representing 53 media clients including those at The Age, writes that the ‘‘virtually identical’’ letters represent a scatter-gun approach and threatening so many journalists without specifics is ‘‘inappropriate and disturbing’’. Mr Quill writes that the allegations are wholly without foundation and notes that many of those who received letters had no involvement in the publication of the articles in question, and were greatly distressed. ‘‘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.’’ The notices to The Age journalists followed a front-page newspaper report that read: ‘‘A very high-profile figure was convicted on Tuesday of a serious crime, but The Age is unable to report their identity due to a suppression order.’’ Pell’s guilt over charges of orally raping one choirboy and molesting another in Melbourne’s St Patrick’s Cathedral 22 years ago was suppressed because he was awaiting a further trial involving other historical sexual allegations against him.

The court ruled that reporting of the December verdict would prevent him receiving a fair hearing in that trial, which was to run in April. It is routine for suppression orders to be made in these circumstances. Pell’s guilty verdict can only now be reported because those allegations will not go to trial and the suppression order has been lifted. Shortly after the guilty verdict, the Pope sacked Pell from his inner circle in the Vatican. Due to the suppression order, Australian news organisations were unable to report the surrounding circumstances.