Laming v Electoral Commissioner of the Australian Electoral Commission

This case concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia by Andrew Laming against the Electoral Commissioner of the Australian Electoral Commission. The dispute arose from Mr Laming's alleged contravention of section 321D(5) of the *Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918* (Cth), which requires a "notifying entity" to include specific "particulars" in electoral matter communicated to a person. Mr Laming had posted electoral matter on a Facebook page on three occasions without including the required particulars, and these posts were viewed by several individuals.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether section 321D(5) of the *Electoral Act* was contravened on each occasion a post was made available for viewing, or on each occasion a person viewed the post. The Full Court of the Federal Court had previously found that a contravention occurred each time a post was viewed by a different person, leading to multiple contraventions for each post.

The High Court reasoned that the purpose of section 321D, as informed by its legislative history concerning the shift to digital communication and the need for accountability, was to ensure that electoral matter carried the necessary authorisations. The Court held that the contravention of section 321D(5) is triggered by the failure to include the required particulars in electoral matter that is communicated to at least one person, irrespective of the number of people who subsequently view it. The Court found that the focus of the provision is on the act of non-compliance by non-notification, not the extent of its dissemination or the number of viewers.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Full Court. The Court reinstated the primary judge's finding that each post constituted a single contravention, rather than multiple contraventions based on the number of viewers. The High Court ordered that the appeal to the Full Court be dismissed and that each party bear their own costs of the proceedings before the Full Court, with the respondent to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal to the High Court.