Bell v Stewart

The case of *Bell v Stewart* concerned appeals to the High Court of Australia from convictions in the Court of Petty Sessions of Victoria. The appellant, George Bell, was the printer and publisher of the *Argus* newspaper, which published an article during ongoing proceedings in the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. The article contained commentary on the issue of "slowing down" by employees, suggesting a lack of judicial knowledge and a detachment of the Arbitration Court from industrial realities. Bell was charged and convicted on two counts under section 83 of the *Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1918*: one for wilfully using words calculated to bring the Court into disrepute, and another for wilful contempt of the Court.

The High Court was required to determine whether the published words were capable of bringing the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration into disrepute, and whether they constituted a wilful contempt of that Court. A preliminary issue also arose regarding the extent of the High Court's power on an appeal by way of order to review from a State Court exercising federal jurisdiction, specifically whether the Court was bound by the limitations of the State appeal process or could exercise its own judgment.

A majority of the Court, comprising Knox C.J., Gavan Duffy and Starke JJ., held that the conviction for using words calculated to bring the Court into disrepute should be set aside, finding that the words were not capable of such a meaning. They also held that the conviction for wilful contempt should be set aside on the basis that the administration of the law by the President of the Court could not be obstructed or interfered with by the published words. Isaacs and Rich JJ. agreed that both convictions should be set aside. They found the conviction for bringing the Court into disrepute unsustainable for similar reasons regarding the capacity of the words. However, they differed on the contempt charge, concluding that while the words constituted a technical contempt due to their tendency to influence pending proceedings, the requirement of "wilfulness" under the Act meant that the prosecution had failed to prove the necessary intent to obstruct or interfere with the administration of justice. The Court unanimously affirmed that its appellate power under section 73 of the Constitution was not limited by the High Court Rules and that it was obliged to give its own judgment on the merits of the appeal.

The High Court made the orders absolute, setting aside both convictions and ordering the informant to pay the costs of the proceedings in both the High Court and the Court below.