Attorney-General (Cth) v Schmidt (No 3)

The Attorney-General (Cth) was the applicant and Mr. Schmidt was the respondent in proceedings before Kitto J of the High Court of Australia. The dispute concerned the validity of a notice issued by the Attorney-General under section 10 of the *Royal Commissions Act 1952* (Cth) requiring Mr. Schmidt to attend and give evidence before a Royal Commission. Mr. Schmidt had challenged the validity of this notice.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Attorney-General had acted *bona fide* in issuing the notice. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the Attorney-General had genuinely believed that Mr. Schmidt possessed information relevant to the subject matter of the Royal Commission, or if the notice was issued for an improper purpose, thereby rendering it invalid.

Kitto J found that the evidence did not establish that the Attorney-General had acted otherwise than in good faith. His Honour reasoned that the Attorney-General was entitled to rely on the information provided to him by the Royal Commissioner regarding the relevance of Mr. Schmidt's evidence. The onus was on Mr. Schmidt to demonstrate a lack of good faith, and this onus had not been discharged. Therefore, the notice issued under section 10 of the *Royal Commissions Act 1952* (Cth) was valid.