John Preston had stood on a street corner near a Hobart clinic and held placards with anti-abortion messages and depictions of a foetus, and was convicted under the Tasmanian Act.

By plurality, Kiefel CJ, Bell and Keane declared that the acts did not breach the constitutional implied freedom of political communication.

That is so even where the choice to be made by a particular individual may be politically controversial" The court explained that a law's purpose will be legitimate, so long as it doesn't impede the functioning of representative and responsible government.

[13] The Solicitor-General of Victoria submitted to the contrary that the law was concerned with the effect upon women and staff, of an environment of 'conflict, fear and intimidation' that had been created outside abortion clinics.

[14] The Act itself,[15] expressly declared the purpose to be protecting the safety and well-being of persons accessing lawful medical services.

[9] The plurality explained that the "protection of the dignity of the people of the Commonwealth ... is a purpose readily seen to be compatible with the maintenance of the constitutionally prescribed system of representative and responsible government".

and that;"when in Lange the Court declared that ‘each member of the Australian community has an interest in disseminating and receiving information, opinions and arguments concerning government and political matters that affect the people of Australia’, there was no suggestion that any member of the Australian community may be obliged to receive such information, opinions and arguments."

The plurality in the case applied a legal test for breaches of the freedom of political communication doctrine, substantially similar to that which the court had used in McCloy v NSW.

As noted by the court:"A structured proportionality analysis provides the means by which rational justification for the legislative burden on the implied freedom may be analysed, and it serves to encourage transparency in reasoning to an answer.