The High Court has unanimously allowed appeal from the Full Federal Court’s decision to dismiss Li’s appeal against the ADF Discipline Appeal Tribunal, which had found Li guilty of ‘creating a disturbance’ contrary to s 33(b) of the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 (Cth). Li, an ADF lawyer, was involved in a heated verbal confrontation with a financial claims officer which Li alleges was in response to a racial slur. Two questions were raised on appeal relating to the interpretation of s 33(b): is violence or a threat of violence required for a ‘disturbance’ to exist, and what physical and fault elements are involved in ‘creating’ a disturbance. The High Court held that a disturbance is a ‘non-trivial interruption of order’ and need not necessarily involve violence or the threat of violence: ‘[q]uarrelling may, in a particular factual context, be enough’. As to physical and fault elements, the Court held that the section requires that the accused did the act and meant to do so, that that act resulted in a disturbance, and that accused either believed it would result in a disturbance or was aware of a substantial risk that it would result in a disturbance (and, in the circumstances known, it was unjustifiable to take that risk). The Court thus held that the judge advocate’s original directions were erroneous, and quashed Li’s conviction.