As two reporters on one side of the nation faced jail this week for refusing to reveal confidential sources, a state daily newspaper and its editor on the other were fined a total of $20,000 for vilifying a nine-year-old boy as a “menace to society.” Both cases involved serious charges of contempt of court, the risk of imprisonment and/or hefty fines.

The first has rekindled an important national debate over free speech, sparked a noble defence of ethical journalism and rallied powerful media interests to support a fundamental law reform that many leading Australians claim is long overdue.

The second has exposed the tawdry underbelly of media power to direct public opinion against society’s weakest members – in this case an unruly, near-homeless Aboriginal child diagnosed with a mental illness. The only public protest has been of racism against The West Australian newspaper and its brash young editor, Paul Armstrong.

Three senior judges of Western Australia’s Supreme Court of Appeal ruled on Tuesday that Armstrong and The West broke a long-standing WA law that bars publicly identifying children committed to State care, often due to parental neglect. In prominent reports on three consecutive days, Armstrong and The West not only published the boy’s first name but also his nickname, age, suburb, the names of his parents and grandmother and the fact that the boy suffered from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and was a ward of the State.

“Kids a law unto themselves”, “suburban terrorist” and “a menace to society and himself “ set the tone for The West‘s coverage of the nine-year-old boy’s troubled life.

“The (front page) photograph of 20 July (2004) in particular, which shows him glaring up from under his eyebrows at the photographer, puts one in mind of the evil children sometimes seen in horror films,” WA’s Supreme Court of Appeal judges said.

Armstrong – who was absent last month for his guilty plea and holidaying overseas for this week’s sentencing – claimed in a written plea to be “at all times aware that it is unlawful to identify a ward of the State.” But the judges said it was “somewhat inexplicable” that he (Armstrong) did not understand that the series of publications was likely to identify the child.

They rejected the editor’s written claim that “concern for the child and the child’s welfare was necessarily the predominant factor” in The West’s reports. Branding the child an “suburban terrorist” plainly had the effect of “vilifying the child and causing prejudice against him”, the judges said.

Had the contempt been deliberate, it might have resulted in up to 12 months’ jail. The judges noted the offending stories followed a Sunday Times exclusive in which the News Ltd publication said the boy was “accused of terrorising a community” without committing contempt of court.

The judges cited The West’s admission of a “possible gap” in legal training of senior editorial staff – presumably including Armstrong – while cadets and junior reporters got regular training in contempt and other media law. The court accepted that Armstrong had become “acutely aware” of breaching the law and sincerely regretted “the contravention and his own role in it.”

However, there was no evidence to “suggest that he either considered taking, or took, legal advice” before publishing the reports admitted to be in contempt. Legal costs awarded against The West and Armstrong are expected to equal at least the $15,000 fine imposed on the newspaper and $5000 against its editor.

Armstrong must surely rue his failure to get legal advice on such an obviously risky story before rushing headlong into print and legal ignominy. By his own evidence, any West cadet or junior reporter would have known better.