This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/oct/18/bob-brown-wins-high-court-challenge-to-tasmanian-anti-protest-laws
The article has changed 10 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Bob Brown wins high court challenge to Tasmanian anti-protest laws | Bob Brown wins high court challenge to Tasmanian anti-protest laws |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| The former Australian Greens leader Bob Brown has won a landmark high court fight against Tasmanian anti-protest laws passed in 2014 and under which he was charged in 2016. | The former Australian Greens leader Bob Brown has won a landmark high court fight against Tasmanian anti-protest laws passed in 2014 and under which he was charged in 2016. |
| Brown, the third person arrested under the Workplaces (Protection from Protesters) Act 2014, argued the laws directly targeted implied freedom of political expression in the constitution and were therefore unconstitutional. | Brown, the third person arrested under the Workplaces (Protection from Protesters) Act 2014, argued the laws directly targeted implied freedom of political expression in the constitution and were therefore unconstitutional. |
| The landmark case stemmed from Brown’s arrest while filming a video about an anti-logging protest at Lapoinya state forest in Tasmania’s north-west in January 2016. | The landmark case stemmed from Brown’s arrest while filming a video about an anti-logging protest at Lapoinya state forest in Tasmania’s north-west in January 2016. |
| The Tasmanian government dropped the charges against Brown and his co-arrestee Jessica Hoyt once they mounted the high court challenge, but Brown continued the challenge to protect future environmental actions. | The Tasmanian government dropped the charges against Brown and his co-arrestee Jessica Hoyt once they mounted the high court challenge, but Brown continued the challenge to protect future environmental actions. |
| The law prohibited protesters from “preventing, hindering or obstructing” businesses, even in public areas such as state forests or the access points to areas where commercial activities are conducted, if they ought to have known the impact their political activity would have on the business. | The law prohibited protesters from “preventing, hindering or obstructing” businesses, even in public areas such as state forests or the access points to areas where commercial activities are conducted, if they ought to have known the impact their political activity would have on the business. |
| In the hearing in May, Brown’s counsel, Ron Merkel, told the court the law discriminated against protesters by allowing companies to give consent to certain political activities, in effect silencing only those opposed to logging. | In the hearing in May, Brown’s counsel, Ron Merkel, told the court the law discriminated against protesters by allowing companies to give consent to certain political activities, in effect silencing only those opposed to logging. |
| Merkel described the law as “unusual” and without precedent in Australia because police powers to order protesters to move on and the automatic ban on them returning for four days were only enlivened when they agitated “political, environmental, social, cultural or economic issues”. | Merkel described the law as “unusual” and without precedent in Australia because police powers to order protesters to move on and the automatic ban on them returning for four days were only enlivened when they agitated “political, environmental, social, cultural or economic issues”. |
| Michael O’Farrell, the solicitor general of Tasmania, explained to the court that charges against Brown had been dropped because police had “misapprehended” the legal status of the area he had been found in, and it was not a business premises or access area. | Michael O’Farrell, the solicitor general of Tasmania, explained to the court that charges against Brown had been dropped because police had “misapprehended” the legal status of the area he had been found in, and it was not a business premises or access area. |
| O’Farrell submitted the law was not designed to ban protests per se but only those who intended to, or could be imputed to have intended, to stop or hinder lawful business activity and successfully had that effect. | |
| He suggested there would be nothing unlawful about protesters holding signs outside a logging area and standing aside to allow vehicles to enter. | He suggested there would be nothing unlawful about protesters holding signs outside a logging area and standing aside to allow vehicles to enter. |
| O’Farrell accepted the public is allowed to use state forests where their use is “not incompatible” with forestry uses but said that “doesn’t mean Brown and Hoyt have some sort of freestanding right to protest” in the area. | O’Farrell accepted the public is allowed to use state forests where their use is “not incompatible” with forestry uses but said that “doesn’t mean Brown and Hoyt have some sort of freestanding right to protest” in the area. |
| A majority of the court agreed the laws did breach the constitution’s implied freedom of speech. In particular, they ruled that by stopping members of the public from carrying out protests on public lands – “forestry land and related business access areas” – the laws impugned those free speech provisions. | |
| However, the court also ruled that aspects of the law that stopped protesters from hindering business activity on business premises were allowable. | However, the court also ruled that aspects of the law that stopped protesters from hindering business activity on business premises were allowable. |
| Since the Hodgman government introduced the laws after an election promise in Tasmania in 2014, as part of that state’s long-running forestry wars, two other states tried to follow suit. | Since the Hodgman government introduced the laws after an election promise in Tasmania in 2014, as part of that state’s long-running forestry wars, two other states tried to follow suit. |
| New South Wales succeeded, introducing laws that imposed a tenfold increase in fines for people protesting against coal seam gas and mining developments. | New South Wales succeeded, introducing laws that imposed a tenfold increase in fines for people protesting against coal seam gas and mining developments. |
| The former Western Australian government proposed similar laws but they were not enacted before the March election and have been thrown out by the McGowan government. | The former Western Australian government proposed similar laws but they were not enacted before the March election and have been thrown out by the McGowan government. |
| More to come ... | More to come ... |