R v Nicholls

This case concerned a motion brought by the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth seeking the committal of Henry Richard Nicholls, the editor of *The Mercury* newspaper, for contempt of the High Court. The alleged contempt arose from the publication of an article titled "A Modest Judge," which commented on remarks made by Mr. Justice Higgins during proceedings in the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. The motion also sought an alternative finding of contempt of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, but this aspect was not pressed.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the publication of the article, specifically its introductory sentences, constituted a contempt of court. The Crown argued that any publication calculated to bring a Judge into contempt or lower his authority was a contempt of court, particularly when it alleged political subserviency. The respondent, while admitting inaccuracy in some aspects of the article and expressing regret, contended that the publication did not amount to contempt.

The Court, in dismissing the motion, clarified the nature of contempt of court. It held that while publications concerning a Judge may be libellous, they only constitute contempt if they are calculated to obstruct or interfere with the course of justice or the due administration of the law. The Court distinguished between contempt by "scandalizing a Court or a Judge" and acts that obstruct justice, noting that the former category, while historically recognised, had become practically obsolete and required a high threshold. Applying this principle, the Court found that the two introductory sentences of the article, even if potentially libellous, were not calculated to obstruct or interfere with the administration of justice in the High Court. The Court further stated that fair comment on judicial conduct, particularly if it concerns impartiality and is made in the public interest, is not contemptuous and may even be beneficial.

Consequently, the High Court ordered that the motion be dismissed.