This document provides contact details and background information for Tom Blackburn SC, a barrister practicing in both Australia and England. It lists his admissions, education history, areas of practice, representative cases, and contact information for his clerks in London and Sydney. The document focuses on Blackburn's experience in commercial, media, communications, competition and consumer law, with an emphasis on his appellate and defamation work for various media organizations.

1. TOM BLACKBURN SC
Contact details 5RB,
5 Gray’s Inn Square
London WC1R 5AH
Banco Chambers,
Level 5, 65 Martin Place,
Sydney NSW 2000 Australia
Tel: +44 20 7242 2902
Fax : +61 2 9237 0880
Mobile: +61 408 482971
tomblackburn@5rb.com
tom.blackburn@banco.net.au
Clerk (London): Andrew Love
+44 20 7242 2902
andrewlove@5rb.com
Clerk (Sydney): Jeh Coutinho
Tel: +61 2 8239 0201
Clerk@banco.net.au
Admissions New South Wales Bar 6th November 1987.
Admitted High Court of Australia, South Australia, Victoria,
Queensland, Western Australia, the Northern Territory, Tasmania
and the ACT.
Republic of Ireland (King’s Inns 1992)
England and Wales (Gray’s Inn 2001).
Professional University of Adelaide, LL.B, 1984
1984-1987
Solicitor, Finlaysons, Adelaide.
1988 – present
Barrister, Sydney. Appointed to silk (Senior Counsel) in 2003.
Practice areas Commercial, media and communications law (commercial,
regulatory, contempt, copyright and defamation), competition and
consumer law.

2. 2
I regularly appear for the main media organisations in Australia,
interstate as well as in Sydney.
I am an experienced trial and appellate advocate with extensive
experience in urgent applications.
Leading Technology, Media & Telecommunications Barristers –
NSW, 2016 - Doyles Guide (Australia)
Australian Financial Review Best Lawyers in Australia 2012,
2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 – litigation.
SOME CASES OF INTEREST
The following is a list of some of the matters in which I have been briefed over the last ten
years or so.
 Royal Guardian Mortgage Management Pty Ltd v Nguyen [2016] NSWCA 88
(CA)
Appeared for the successful appellant. Court of Appeal ordered new trial because of
denial of procedural fairness as a result of excessive judicial intervention in the
course of the trial. The Court also overturned adverse credit findings against
appellant’s principal witness.
 Duffy v Google Inc.
Appeared for Google in its appeal from the judgment of Blue J in the Supreme
Court of South Australia in Duffy v Google Inc. In that case, after a thorough
review of Commonwealth authorities that included, among others, Metropolitan
International Schools, Bunt, Tamiz, Crookes, Trkulja, Oriental Press Group and
Bleyer, the Court held Google liable for search various result snippets,
hyperlinked webpages and auto-complete results. The issues on appeal include
whether Google became liable for publication after notification, and whether, and
in what circumstances, it was liable for the publication of third-party webpages to
which the search results hyperlinked. Judgment is reserved.
 Georgina Hope Rinehart v TCN Channel 9 Pty Ltd, Nine Network Australia
Pty Ltd and Cordell Jigsaw Productions Pty Ltd
Instructed for the plaintiff, who is the proprietor of Hancock Prospecting, a major
Australian iron-ore miner. She sued in privacy, malicious falsehood and misleading
and deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law, over the intrusive and
false depiction of herself in a nationally televised mini-series. The proceedings
recently settled at mediation. The terms of settlement prevent the defendants from
ever rebroadcasting the series or streaming it electronically, or from selling it online
or in any other medium.
 Inspector of the Independent Commission against Corruption; Parliamentary
Inquiry into Operation Hale

3. 3
I am currently advising the Hon. David Levine AO QC, the Inspector of the
Independent Commission against Corruption (a statutory anti-corruption body with
extensive inquisitorial and investigative powers), in his inquiry and report to Parliament
on alleged abuses of power by the ICAC in the conduct of Operation Hale. Operation
Hale is an investigation by the ICAC into allegations of misconduct by a senior Crown
prosecutor. The issues on which my junior Peter Kulevski and I have advised are: the
unlawful seizure by officers of the ICAC of mobile phones by means of a notice to
produce instead of a search warrant; whether an ex post facto attempt to cure the
unlawful seizure by the issue of a warrant made the initial seizure lawful; and whether
the Inspector, whose office is established under the law of New South Wales, can
require the ICAC to produce to him telecommunication interception material provided
to the ICAC by the Australian Crime Commission under Federal law. Because of the
immense public interest generated by the inquiry and the associated Parliamentary
hearings, the Inspector has publicly released our opinions here and here.
 Wagner & Ors v Harbour Radio Pty Limited, Alan Jones, Nine Network
Australia Pty Ltd & Ors.
Instructed for the plaintiffs, four brothers who are well-known industrialists. They
are suing the Nine Network over a 60 Minutes television broadcast, and Harbour
Radio over 34 syndicated radio broadcasts, that accused them of causing the deaths
of numerous people in a flood, and of attempting to cover up their responsibility.
The defendants have pleaded truth. The proceedings will be heard before a jury.
 Dank v Nationwide News Pty Limited and Ors
Successfully appeared for the defendants (the Australian operation of News
Corporation) in defamation claim brought by Stephen Dank, a well-known sports
scientist, over three newspaper articles in the Sydney Daily Telegraph. The
newspaper alleged, inter alia, that the plaintiff had covertly injected WADA-banned
peptides into a first-grade rugby league player, John Mannah, who was in remission
from cancer at the time, and had thereby hastened Mannah’s death from his
resurgent cancer. On14th March 2016, the jury returned a verdict for the defendants
on two of the three articles, finding that the allegations concerning Mr Mannah (in
particular, that the plaintiff had hastened Mannah’s death by the injection of banned
peptides) were true. Although the plaintiff is notionally entitled to damages for the
third article, of considerably lesser seriousness, on 17th March the trial judge (who
retains the function of the assessment of damages) awarded no sum for damages, by
the application of the principles in cases such as Pamplin v Express Newspapers and
Burstein v Times Newspapers, and ordered the unsuccessful plaintiff to pay the
newspaper’s costs.
 Cheikho v Nationwide News Pty Ltd
Appeared late in 2015 for the defendant, the publisher of the Sydney Daily
Telegraph, which was sued over four articles said to give rise to imputations, inter
alia, that the plaintiff was a Muslim extremist, had taken part in a riot and had
participated in a violent protest. The jury found for the defendant in respect of three
out of the four articles, upholding defences of truth and honest opinion. The plaintiff
succeeded on one imputation in respect of the remaining article; it was held by the
trial judge (McCallum J) not to be defensible on the basis of qualified privilege. The

4. 4
plaintiff received a modest award of damages from her Honour (the awarding of
damages is a function reserved for the judge by statute).
 Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd and Ors v Bateman and Anor (2015) 321 ALR
726 (CA)
Appeared for the appellants in the Court of Appeal on the question whether David
Syme & Co Ltd v Hore-Lacy (2000) 1 VR 667, which is Australia’s more limited
version of Polly Peck v Trelford [1986] QB 1000 (CA), should continue to be regarded
as good law. Held, per Basten JA (Macfarlan JA agreeing; McColl JA, dissenting),
Hore-Lacy should no longer be followed. This case puts an end to the ability of
defendants to plead “common sting” meanings in defamation proceedings, and has
opened up a conflict of authority in Australian appellate courts which will have to be
resolved by the High Court.
 2015 - briefed for Opel Networks Pty Limited (a joint venture between telco Optus
Networks and Elders) in proceedings in the New South Wales Supreme Court, Equity
Division, against the Australian Government over the cancellation of the contract
between Opel and the Federal Government to establish a rural broadband wireless
network. Proceedings have settled.
 2015 - briefed in the Commercial List proceedings for Serco Australia Pty Limited,
the defendant in proceedings brought by infrastructure management provider RCR
Resolve FM Pty Limited, involving RCR’s management of Federal Government
immigration and detention facilities. Proceedings have settled.
 Yu v Cao [2015] NSWCA 276 (CA)
Appeared for the successful appellant who had been the subject of a large non-party
costs order in the District Court. The appeal involved the principles applicable to the
exercise of the discretion to award costs against non-parties. The Court held that the
circumstances of the case were not such as to warrant, in the interests of justice, the
exercise of the exceptional power to make a non-party costs order the appellant.
 Gacic v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd (2015) 89 NSWLR 538 (CA)
Appeared for Fairfax, respondents and cross-appellants in a very long-running case
arising out of a restaurant review, in its third time in the Court of Appeal, after three
first instance trials [and one trip to the High Court of Australia: (2007) 230 CLR 291];
the issue in this appeal was damages. The plaintiff was partially successful, but Fairfax
also succeeded in its cross-appeal that the judge had misapplied mitigation principles.
 Rinehart v Nine Entertainment Co Holdings Ltd and Nine Network Australia Pty
Ltd [2015] NSWSC 239 (Supreme Court)
Appeared for the plaintiff (see above) in her successful interlocutory application for
preliminary discovery to force Channel 9 to produce for inspection the second episode
of a miniseries about the life of the plaintiff, due to be broadcast two days later.
Injunction proceedings the next day resulted in substantial cuts being made to the
program.

5. 5
 Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd and Anor v Pedavoli (2015) 326 ALR 737 (CA)
Appeared for the appellant; issues included whether publication occurred – the plaintiff
was not named – the adequacy of an offer of amends under statute; quantum of general
damages and aggravated damages.
 Born Brands Pty Ltd and Ors v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd (2014) 88
NSWLR 421 (CA)
Appeared for the respondent Nine Network on the plaintiffs’ appeal from the dismissal
of their defamation proceedings. Issues included the proper construction of the
contextual truth defence contained in Australia’s uniform national defamation law; and
the circumstances in which for-profit corporations are entitled to sue; appeal dismissed.
An application by the appellants for leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia was
refused (French CJ and Bell J).
 2014 - advised and appeared in Commercial List proceedings for Lantern Hotel
Group Limited (ASX listed) against Millinium Asset Services Limited, the trustee of a
unit trust, over the alleged breach of the terms of an off-market buyback. Proceedings
have settled.
 2013 - Advised ASX listed company iCash Payment Systems Limited in its dispute
with minority shareholders in Korea. The dispute has resolved.
 Milisits v The State of South Australia (2014) 119 SASR 538 (Full Court)
Appeared for Vili Milisits OAM, the owner of one of Australia’s most successful
bakery businesses, in appeal proceedings in the Full Court of the Supreme Court of
South Australia, defeating a claim of Public Interest Immunity asserted by the State of
South Australia. An application by the State for leave to appeal to the High Court of
Australia was refused (French CJ and Keane J).
 Toben v Milne [2014] NSWCA 200 (CA)
Appeared pro bono in the Court of Appeal for a Greens Senator, Christine Milne, the
respondent to the appeal, who was the defendant in defamation proceedings brought by
a well-known Holocaust denier, Frederick Toben. The appeal was dismissed.
 Clive Palmer v Nationwide News Pty Limited [2014] QSC 174
Appeared for the defendant, Nationwide News Pty Limited, the publisher of The
Australian newspaper, in defamation proceedings in the Queensland Supreme Court
brought by businessman, MP and leader of the Palmer United Party, Clive Palmer. His
case suffered a major setback after Justice Boddice struck out almost half of the
imputations pleaded in his statement of claim. Boddice J ordered Mr Palmer to pay
Nationwide’s costs of the proceedings. After this judgment the case settled with no
ongoing restrictions on publication by Nationwide and no financial terms.
 Dank v Cronulla Sutherland District Rugby League Football Club Ltd and ors
[2014] NSWCA 288 (CA)

6. 6
Appeared for Nationwide News Pty Limited, publisher of the Sydney Daily Telegraph,
in defamation proceedings against the publisher of the Daily Telegraph commenced by
sports scientist Stephen Dank over allegations of doping in the National Rugby League
and Australian Football League. The above appeal involved an unsuccessful attempt by
Dank to overturn various interlocutory rulings. Dank was ordered to pay Nationwide
News’ costs on an indemnity basis.
 7 Network Operations Ltd v Brown [2013] NSWSC 372
Appeared in Commercial List proceedings for Melanie Brown (aka Scary Spice) in
proceedings brought by Channel 7 for breach of contract and injunction proceedings
against her and the Channel Nine Network to stop her from appearing on the Australian
version of The X Factor.
 The Age Co Ltd v Liu (2013) 82 NSWLR 268 (CA)
Appeared for the appellant (publisher of the Melbourne Age) and three of its journalists
in an appeal from an order for preliminary discovery. The issues on the appeal included
the constitutional validity of the applicable Supreme Court Rule in its current form; and
whether the so-called “newspaper rule” required strengthening in the light of the
implied constitutional freedom of political communication. An application for leave to
appeal to the High Court was refused, although the High Court sat three judges instead
of two on the application for leave (Hayne, Bell and Gageler JJ).
 Candy v Bauer Media [2013] NSWSC 979
Appeared in the New South Wales Supreme Court, Equity Division, for Bauer Media
Australia in Holly (Candy) Vallance’s proceedings against Bauer for permanent
injunctions and damages for breach of contract, breach of confidence and privacy.
Defeated Ms Vallance’s application for an injunction.
 O’Shane v Harbour Radio Pty Limited (2013) 303 ALR 314; (2013) 281 FLR 1;
[2013] NSWCA 315 (CA)
Appeared for Harbour Radio Pty Limited in defamation proceedings brought by former
Magistrate Pat O’Shane. This appeal involved whether the principle of judicial
immunity prevented the examination of her conduct on the bench, and whether the
principle, if it prevented such examination, was consistent with the implied freedom of
political communication in the Federal Constitution. The Court held that a discussion of
judicial conduct was not a political or government matter that attracted constitutional
protection, but also held that Ms O’Shane was not entitled to invoke judicial immunity
to prevent Harbour Radio defending.
 Fairfax Digital Australia & New Zealand Pty Ltd and Ors v Ibrahim (2012) 83
NSWLR 52; 263 FLR 211 (CCA)
Appeared in the Court of Criminal Appeal for the appellants, Fairfax Digital Australia
& New Zealand Pty Limited, Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited, News Digital
Media Pty Ltd, Nationwide News Pty Limited, Australian Broadcasting Corporation,
Yahoo!7 Pty Ltd, Seven Network (Operations) Limited and Ninemsn Pty Limited in

7. 7
proceedings involving the constitutionality of the Court Suppression and Non-
publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) in its interaction with Federal legislation, the
Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth), and the extent to which those laws were
inconsistent. The Court held that to the extent that the Court Suppression and Non-
publication Orders Act 2010 permitted a court to make orders requiring an internet
content host to remove or otherwise restrict access to content, or to inquire of or
monitor the content hosted on its websites, the nature of which it was not aware of, it
was inconsistent with Schedule 5 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and pursuant to
s 109 of the Federal Constitution such orders were invalid.
 Harbour Radio Pty Limited v Australian Communications and Media Authority
(2012) 202 FCR 525; (2012) 128 ALD 145; (2012) 291 ALR 354
Administrative law; judicial review. Appeared in the Federal Court of Australia for
Harbour Radio Pty Limited on application for judicial review of a decision by the
Australian Communications and Media Authority under the Broadcasting Services
(Commercial Radio Current Affairs Disclosure) Standard 2012. Questions involved
whether the decision was in excess of jurisdiction conferred by s 125 Broadcasting
Services Act 1992 (Cth); whether relevant jurisdictional facts existed; whether the
standard was reasonably or rationally proportionate to primary power.
 Roozendaal v Fairfax Digital Australia and New Zealand Pty Ltd and Another -
(2015) 232 FCR 487; 324 ALR 346 (Federal Court)
Appeared for defendants on question whether in a civil trial in the Federal Court of
Australia, the Court should empanel a jury, having regard to the procedural law of New
South Wales (the proceedings having been issued in the New South Wales District
Registry of the Federal Court), and the historical mode of trial of defamation actions in
New South Wales which was by jury.
 Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v Alex [2014] NSWCA 273 (CA)
DEFAMATION — Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) — Pleadings — Imputations —
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 14.30 — Where ambiguity — Not to be left
to jury subject to clarification.
DEFAMATION — Pleadings — Whether matter published capable of conveying
defamatory imputation.
 Liu v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd - (2012) 84 NSWLR 547; 93 ACSR 26
Appeal involving a consideration of competing statements in English decisions as to
whether the scope of “without prejudice” privilege was restricted to admissions
made in the course of settlement negotiations: Muller v Linsley [1996] PNLR 74 at
79 (Muller) per Hoffman LJ; Bradford v Bingley plc v Rashid [2006] 1 WLR 2066 ;
[2006] 4 All ER 705 compare Ofulue v Bossert [2009] 1 AC 990 ; [2009]
2 WLR 749 ; [2009] 3 All ER 93 at [71] per Lord Rodger and [72] per Lord
Neuberger.
Commonwealth of Australia As RepresentedBy the Department of Industry,
Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education v Fairfax Media Ltd
and Anor [2012] NSWSC 1336

8. 8
Appeared for defendants in the Supreme Court, Common Law Division, against the
Commonwealth of Australia in application to restrain defendants from having
access to documents held in Court by the Prothonotary, the documents having been
the subject of an application under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth).
 Hyndes v Nationwide News Pty Ltd; Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Hyndes [2012]
NSWCA 349
Appeared for respondent/cross-appellant on plaintiff's appeal from jury verdict. Jury
had been satisfied of the substantial truth of the imputations and had found for the
defendant. Whether the verdict unreasonable or not open on the evidence.
Discussion of Hocking v Bell [1945] HCA 16 ; 71 CLR 430. Appeal dismissed.
Cross-appeal involved an application by the successful defendant for indemnity
costs following failure to accept reasonable offer. Interaction with Uniform Civil
Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW); whether offers reasonable; whether failure to accept
the offer was unreasonable. Whether the application, made under Defamation Act
2005 (NSW), s 40 involved the exercise of a discretionary power.
 Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v Cummings; Fairfax Media Publications Pty
Ltd Kate Lahey and Fairfax Printers Pty Ltd v Cummings (2013) 280 FLR 238 (CA)
Appeared for appellants who attempted unsuccessfully to have two proceedings,
brought for the admitted purpose of avoiding a statutory cap on damages,
consolidated. The issue was whether the bringing of two proceedings was in the
circumstances an abuse of process. Effect of amendments to Civil Law (Wrongs)
Act 2002 (ACT) on common law following Thompson v Lambert; whether Civil
Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) s 133 determinative.
 Clarke v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (t/as The Sunday Times) (2012) (2012) 201
FCR 389; 289 ALR 345 (Federal Court)
Civil and political rights; anti-discrimination. Claim brought under section 18C of
the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 over the publication of some 500 blog
comments on the defendant newspaper’s website, commenting the deaths of three
indigenous children in a stolen car. The claim was brought by the mother of the
children. Issue was whether comments contravened s 18C of the Racial
Discrimination Act 1975, and whether comments were exempt pursuant to s 18D of
the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. In the result, only 12 of the blog comments
were found by Barker J to be in breach of the Act.
 The Korean Times Pty Ltd and Anor v Un Dok Pak [2011] NSWCA 365 (CA)
Appeal involving whether the defence of common law qualified privilege should,
exceptionally, apply to a confined publication in Korean language newspaper;
whether reciprocity of interest and duty established.
 Gacic v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd & anor [2011] NSWCA 362 (CA)
Further appeal in long-running defamation case involving a restaurant review. The
trial judge found for the defendants, but the verdict was overturned by the Court of
Appeal, which held that the reader would have understood the review to refer to

9. 9
both of the establishment’s restaurants, and since the reviewer had only eaten at
one, the defence of fair comment must fail.
 Snedden v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 262 (CA)
Appeared for the successful defendant, the respondent to the appeal. The plaintiff
was a naturalised Australian citizen also known as Dragan Vasilijevic, "Captain
Dragan”, and had been a militia commander for the breakaway Serbian enclave of
Krajina during the Civil War in the former Yugoslavia. He sued The Australian
newspaper for alleging that he had committed war crimes that included mass
murder, torture and rape. The claims were defended on the basis of truth. The
defendant went to substantial expense and difficulty to locate and bring to Australia
numerous witnesses who testified against the plaintiff; a number of other witnesses
gave video link evidence from a specially convened court in Zagreb. Latham J
found that all the allegations were true. The plaintiff's appeal was dismissed.
Although the plaintiff had been mentioned unfavourably in the course of certain
proceedings in the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Republic of
Yugoslavia, he had not been the subject of any charges, and was at liberty in
Australia. In consequence of the evidence given in the trial, the Republic of Croatia
(which had jurisdiction under the rules of the ICTY) successfully sought an order
for the extradition of the plaintiff, and he is currently on trial in Croatia for war
crimes.
 Hogan v Australian Crime Commission & ors (2010) 240 CLR 651 (High
Court of Australia)
Appeared in the High Court of Australia for Nationwide News Pty Ltd and John
Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd on an unsuccessful appeal by the actor Paul Hogan to
prevent the publication documents which he had deployed in Court proceedings
against the Australian Crime Commission, and in respect of which legal
professional privilege had been waived; and whether because of their highly
sensitive nature (as documents relating to his taxation arrangements) they should
continue to be the subject of various orders restricting their publication to prevent
prejudice to the administration of justice. His appeal was dismissed.
 West Australian Newspapers Ltd & anor v Bond (2009) 40 WAR 164 (CA)
Appeared for the appellants, a newspaper proprietor and journalists, from a Norwich
Pharamacal order made in favour of a formerly prominent industrialist who had
served a prison sentence for various white-collar crimes. He intended bringing
actions for breach of confidence, breach of privacy and conversion in respect of
confidential correspondence about his business affairs that had found this way in the
hands of the newspaper. He sought inspection of audiotapes that would reveal the
identity of the appellants’ confidential source. The issues included the common
law's recognition of the public interest in the free flow of information by the
imposition of restraints on the disclosure of the identity of a media proprietor's or
journalist's confidential sources, and whether the information revealed by a source
confidentially appears to be a matter of genuine public interest; including whether
the information discloses an iniquity. The appeal was allowed and the order was set
aside.

10. 10
 R v Baladjam & ors (2008) 270 ALR 92
Appeared for various national television networks and newspapers. Trial of 12
defendants on charges of terrorism offences commenced in Melbourne; nine
accused to be tried in Sydney on charges of terrorism offences. Evidence of
communications between one defendant in Melbourne trial and certain accused in
Sydney case to be adduced in Melbourne trial — National media outlets reporting
on court proceedings in Melbourne trial — Accused in Sydney case applied for quia
timet injunction to restrain threatened contempt of court and for suppression orders
with respect to certain identifying information — Applications refused.
 Commissioner of Police v Nationwide News Pty Ltd and Anor (2007) 70 NSWLR
643 (Court of Appeal)
Public interest immunity; appeal (allowed in part) by the Commissioner of Police
from the refusal of a non-publication order for information previously disclosed in
open court; appellant claimed anonymity of certain persons should be preserved
with assigned pseudonyms for limited disclosure of identified classes of
information, being procedures to be followed by undercover offices in
circumstances where a crime was on the point of being committed. The
Commissioner claimed that the first instance Judge had erred in holding that certain
material did not contain specific or explicit information regarding applicant's
practice and policy.
 John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Hitchcock (2007) 70 NSWLR 484 (Court of
Appeal )
Appeared for successful appellant in proceedings involving various defamation
defences at common law and under the Defamation Act 1974.
 State of Western Australia v Armstrong and West Australian Newspapers Pty Ltd
[2007] WASCA 204 (CA)
Successfully defended the proprietor and editor of the "West Australian" newspaper
on a charge of contempt of court.
 John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd and another v Gacic (2007) 230 CLR 291;
(2007) 235 ALR 402 (High Court of Australia)
Appeared for appellants on their appeal to the High Court of Australia on the proper
construction of section 108 of the Supreme Court Act and whether and in what
circumstances it empowered an appellate court to enter its own verdict where it had
determined that a jury verdict was unreasonable.
 Regina v Lodhi (2006) 163 A Crim R 448 (Supreme Court, Criminal Division)
Criminal law — Terrorism — Media interest — Implied freedom of speech
Courts and judicial system — Cross-vesting — Terrorism offences — Discretion
Constitutional law — Constitution — Implied rights, freedoms and immunities —
Terrorism offences.

11. 11