R v Dunbabin [1935] HCA 34

R v Dunbabin [1935] HCA 34

The article published was calculated to weaken confidence in the authority of the High Court, disparage the Court, and lower its authority, thus constituting a serious contempt that must be repressed by judicial penalty.

Parties
Applicant: The King; Applicant: Dulcie Williams; Respondent: Thomas Dunbabin; Respondent: Sun Newspapers Ltd.
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Motion for Contempt / Judgment After Argument Before Full Court
Outcome
Respondents found guilty of contempt; fines imposed.
Legal Topics
Scandalizing the Court, Publication Prejudicing Pending Proceedings, Summary Jurisdiction in Contempt
Constitutional Law Contempt of Court Scandalizing the Court Publication Prejudicing Pending Proceedings Summary Jurisdiction in Contempt

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The King

Applicant

Dulcie Williams

Applicant

Thomas Dunbabin

Respondent

Sun Newspapers Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Motion for Contempt / Judgment After Argument Before Full Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the published article constituted contempt by scandalizing the High Court
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was entitled to bring the motion
  3. 3 What penalty should be imposed for contempt

Ratio Decidendi

The article published was calculated to weaken confidence in the authority of the High Court, disparage the Court, and lower its authority, thus constituting a serious contempt that must be repressed by judicial penalty.

Court Disposition

Respondents found guilty of contempt; fines imposed.

Orders

  • Respondent company (Sun Newspapers Ltd.) fined £200.
  • Respondent Thomas Dunbabin fined £50.