Attorney-General (NSW) v Grant

The Attorney-General of New South Wales sought to restrain the respondent, Mr Grant, from continuing to publish a book entitled "The Complete Guide to Australian Law". The Attorney-General contended that the book contained material that was in contempt of court, specifically by scandalising the judiciary. The matter came before the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the publication of Mr Grant's book constituted contempt of court by scandalising the judiciary. This required the Court to consider the scope of the offence of scandalising the judiciary, particularly in light of the freedom of speech protections afforded by the common law and the implied freedom of political communication under the Australian Constitution. The Court also had to determine whether the specific statements and criticisms made in the book met the threshold for contempt.

The High Court, by majority, held that the publication did not amount to contempt of court. The majority reasoned that while the book contained criticisms of the judiciary and the legal system, these criticisms, though perhaps harsh and ill-informed, did not reach the level of attacking the integrity of the courts or the administration of justice in a way that would undermine public confidence. The judges emphasised that for an act to be contemptuous by scandalising the judiciary, it must be likely to prejudice the administration of justice. They distinguished between robust criticism, even if offensive, and statements that directly impugn the impartiality or integrity of the courts. The Court noted that the common law offence of scandalising the judiciary had been rarely invoked in Australia and that a high threshold must be met for such proceedings to succeed.

The High Court ordered that the application for an injunction be dismissed.