Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills

This case involved Nationwide News Pty Ltd and the Solicitor for New South Wales, appearing before the High Court of Australia. The central dispute concerned the interpretation and application of section 92 of the Australian Constitution, specifically in relation to interstate trade, commerce, and intercourse, and the extent to which it permits regulation. The arguments also touched upon the constitutional recognition of a right to freedom of expression and its potential conflict with the common law offence of scandalising the judiciary.

The legal issues before the Court included whether section 112 of the Constitution provided a basis for discriminating between goods and persons crossing state borders, and whether this section unduly confined the broad protection afforded by section 92. Furthermore, the Court was required to consider the international jurisprudence on the offence of scandalising the judiciary, particularly in light of guarantees of freedom of expression, and whether such an offence would be justifiable under modern legal standards, such as the proportionality test applied in Canada and by the European Court of Human Rights.

The Court examined various authorities, including Canadian and European human rights law, to assess the validity of restrictions on freedom of expression. It noted that the European Court of Human Rights, in *Sunday Times v United Kingdom*, held that interferences with freedom of expression, even if prescribed by law and aimed at maintaining judicial authority, were not justified unless they met a "pressing social need." The Court also observed that the United States Supreme Court does not recognise the offence of scandalising the judiciary, finding most criticisms of courts and judges to be protected speech. The arguments presented suggested that the common law offence might not withstand scrutiny under international human rights standards that prioritise freedom of expression.