PARTE WILLIAMS. Contempt of Court-High Court-Publication disparaging Court-Calculated to impair 1935,
public confidence-Right of person indirectly concerned to bring the matter before the Court, SYDNEY, May 28, 29.
Any matter is a contempt of Court which has a tendency to deflect the Court from a strict and unhesitating application of the letter of the law or, in questions Rich, Starke,
of fact, from determining them exclusively by reference to the evidence. Interference with the course of justice amounting to a contempt of Court may also arise from publications which tend to detract from the authority and influence of judicial determinations publications calculated to impair the confidence of the people in the Court's judgments because the matter published aims at lowering the authority of the Court as a whole or that of its Judges and excites misgivings as to the integrity, propriety and impartiality brought to the exercise of the judicial office. A party to pending litigation of the character referred to, even in general terms, in such a publication is entitled to bring the publication before the Court, which may also act ex mero motu.
Principles stated in R. v. Fletcher; Ex parte Kisch, (1935) 52 C.L.R. 248, approved.
MOTION FOR COMMITTAL.
An application was made by way of motion under rule 2 of Order XLIX. of the High Court Rules before Evatt J. by Dulcie Williams that Thomas Dunbabin and Sun Newspapers Ltd., the editor and proprietor respectively of the Sun newspaper, Sydney,
be committed to prison or otherwise punished for contempt of the High Court in publishing in the issue of that newspaper of 13th April 1935 a leading article which, it was alleged, (a) tended to prejudice the applicant in an appeal then pending before the High Court (b) constituted a serious attack on the Court; (c) tended to scandalize the Court and was an attempt to overawe or intimidate the Court by insult and defamation and was calculated to deter actual and prospective litigants from complete reliance upon the Court's administration of justice and (d) was specially calculated SO to deter actual or prospective litigants who bring before the Court any question of the constitutional validity of any Common- wealth legislation. The applicant was a party to an appeal heard by the Court in March 1935, which involved a consideration of Commonwealth legislation in respect of the control and regulation of wireless generally and in particular the power of the Common- wealth to impose licence fees in connection therewith. Judgment in that appeal was reserved, and had not been delivered at the time of the hearing of this application. The article complained of was headed Courts and Cabinets' and was as follows Some time ago the Assistant Treasurer (Mr. Casey) complained of the manner in which the High Court knocked holes in the Federal laws. Those laws have certainly been perforated by the keen legal intelligences of the High Court Bench. One of the results of this…
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 Dunbabin; Ex Parte Williams
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Dunbabin; Ex Parte Williams [1935] HCA 34
Case
[1935] HCA 34
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This case involved an application by Dulcie Williams for the committal of Thomas Dunbabin, editor of the *Sun* newspaper, and Sun Newspapers Ltd., its proprietor, for contempt of the High Court. Williams alleged that a leading article published in the newspaper on 13th April 1935, titled "Courts and Cabinets," was contemptuous of the Court. She contended the article prejudiced her in a pending appeal before the Court, constituted a serious attack on the Court, scandalised it, and was calculated to deter litigants from relying on the Court's administration of justice, particularly concerning constitutional validity of Commonwealth legislation.
The legal issues before the High Court were whether the published article constituted contempt of court, specifically by scandalising the Court or otherwise interfering with the administration of justice. The Court was required to determine if the article's tendency was to deflect the Court from its duties, detract from the authority of judicial determinations, impair public confidence in the Court's judgments, or lower the authority of the Court or its Judges. A further issue was whether the applicant, as a party to pending litigation potentially affected by the article, had the standing to bring the matter before the Court.
The Court, comprising Rich, Starke, Dixon, Evatt, and McTiernan JJ., found that the article constituted a clear contempt of court. They reasoned that any publication tending to deflect the Court from applying the law strictly, or to impair public confidence in its judgments by lowering its authority or exciting misgivings about its integrity and impartiality, is a contempt. While acknowledging that Courts are open to honest criticism, the article's sarcastic tone, misrepresentations of judicial decisions, and imputations of excessive legalism and lack of useful work were deemed to disparage the Court's authority and weaken public confidence. The Court affirmed that a party to pending litigation, even in general terms, is entitled to bring such a publication before the Court, which can also act *ex mero motu*.
The Court ordered that the respondents were guilty of contempt. Sun Newspapers Ltd. was fined £200 and Thomas Dunbabin was fined £50. The respondents were also ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.