The majority held that the balancing of conflicting public interests under the Bread Manufacturers defence is not itself a question of law amenable to appellate review under s101A of the Supreme Court Act 1970. Mason P's dissent articulated a principle that the Bread Manufacturers defence is not available where a publication is proven to have the requisite tendency to interfere with a fair trial by implying or suggesting the guilt of the accused or canvassing matters directly related to the central issue of guilt. The case leaves open the question of whether the balancing exercise under the Bread Manufacturers defence is ever a question of law.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 106 later cases that cite this judgment.
5 of the 106 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.