Legal Research
Cases
R v Brown

R v Brown

Case [2025] VSC 686 7 November 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION

S ECI 2024 06273

R (ON THE APPLICATION OF THE ATTORNEY‑GENERAL OF THE STATE OF VICTORIA)	Applicant
v
ROHAN BROWN	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	Kaye JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	27, 29 October 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	7 November 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Brown
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 686

---

CONTEMPT OF COURT – Application by originating motion and summons seeking orders that respondent guilty of 15 charges of contempt – Conduct comprising comments made by respondent in open court and by correspondence – Respondent made abusive and disrespectful comments to County Court judge in court – Respondent sent numerous emails to court containing threatening language and allegations of impropriety and corruption – Correspondence sent to judges’ chambers and court registries – Whether conduct had tendency to interfere with administration of justice or otherwise scandalise the court – Contempt found proven.

Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015, r 75.08.1; Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, ss 8, 15, 21 and 24; Evidence Act 2008, s 161.

John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd v McRae (1955) 93 CLR 351; R v Dunbabin; ex parte Williams (1935) 53 CLR 434; Witham v Holloway (1995) 183 CLR 525; LCM Litigation Fund Pty Ltd v Coope [2017] NSWCA 200; R v Slaveski [2011] VSC 643; Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Katelaris [2008] NSWSC 389; Re Dyce Sombre (1849) 1 MaC & G 116; 41 ER 1207; Gallagher v Durack (1983) 152 CLR 238; Ex parte Attorney-General; Re Goodwin(1969) 70 SR (NSW) 413; Re Wiseman [1969] NZLR 55; R vCollins [1954] VLR 46; McGuirk v University of New South Wales [2009] NSWSC 1058, considered.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Counsel	Victorian Government Solicitors Office
For the Respondent	In person via audio-visual link

HIS HONOUR:

The applicant, by originating motion and summons, has brought an application seeking orders that the respondent be adjudged guilty of contempt. The application is concerned with 14 email communications by the respondent to the County Court and the Supreme Court, or to one of them, between 17 October 2023 and 2 October 2025, and to a comment made by the respondent to the presiding judge in the County Court in the course of a hearing of proceedings involving the respondent on 3 April 2024.

Background circumstances

In 2023, the respondent commenced five proceedings in the County Court of Victoria against the State of Victoria and related entities alleging numerous torts and other claims. By order made by Judge Manova on 21 June 2024, the proceedings were consolidated into one proceeding.
On 17 August 2023, the respondents in the County Court proceedings filed summonses seeking orders that the proceedings be struck out in their entirety. The application was heard before her Honour Judge Tran on 3 October 2023.…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Brown

Details

AGLC: R v Brown [2025] VSC 686
Case: [2025] VSC 686
Decision Date: 7 November 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, the respondent was found guilty of 15 charges of contempt following an originating motion and summons by the Crown. The respondent, identified as the subject of the proceedings, was alleged to have engaged in conduct that included making abusive and disrespectful comments to a County Court judge during court proceedings. Additionally, the respondent was accused of sending numerous emails to various court registries and judges’ chambers that contained threatening language and allegations of impropriety and corruption. The Crown sought orders declaring the respondent guilty of contempt of court, arguing that the respondent's conduct had the tendency to interfere with the administration of justice or otherwise scandalise the court.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the respondent's conduct, as alleged, amounted to contempt of court. The court considered whether the respondent's comments and correspondence had the tendency to interfere with the administration of justice or scandalise the court, as per the common law definition of contempt. The respondent argued that their conduct was protected under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, specifically in relation to the right to freedom of expression. The court had to weigh these arguments against the need to maintain public confidence in the judicial system and the principle that the administration of justice must be free from interference.

The court found that the respondent's conduct did indeed have the tendency to interfere with the administration of justice and scandalise the court. The abusive and disrespectful comments made in open court, as well as the threatening and improper emails sent to court personnel, were considered to be acts of contempt. The court noted that while freedom of expression is a fundamental right, it is not absolute and can be restricted when it interferes with the proper functioning of the courts. The court relied on previous cases such as R v Dunbabin; ex parte Williams and Gallagher v Durack to support its findings. The respondent's conduct was deemed to have undermined public confidence in the judiciary and thus constituted contempt of court.

The court made orders declaring the respondent guilty of 15 charges of contempt. The respondent was ordered to pay a fine and was reprimanded by the court. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining the integrity and independence of the judiciary, and warned that similar conduct in the future would be met with severe consequences. The court's decision underscored the balance between the protection of free speech and the necessity to uphold the administration of justice.

Orders