Brown v Tasmania

In *Brown v Tasmania*, the plaintiffs challenged the constitutional validity of certain provisions of Tasmania's *Workplaces (Protection from Protesters) Act 2014* (the Protesters Act). The plaintiffs, who had protested forestry operations on forestry land, were directed to leave and stay away from the land under the Act, and were subsequently arrested and charged, though these charges were not pursued. The case was heard by Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon and Edelman JJ.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Protesters Act, particularly in its operation concerning forestry land and related business access areas, impermissibly burdened the implied freedom of political communication guaranteed by the Commonwealth Constitution. The plaintiffs contended that the Act restricted their otherwise lawful protest activities, and they sought a declaration of invalidity. A preliminary question regarding the plaintiffs' standing to bring the challenge was rendered moot as the defendant abandoned its objection.

The Court determined that specific provisions of the Protesters Act, namely ss 6(1)-(4), 8(1), 11(1)-(2), (6)-(8), 13, and Pt 4, were invalid in their operation concerning forestry land or business access areas in relation to forestry land. This invalidity arose because these provisions impermissibly burdened the implied freedom of political communication. The Court reasoned that while the Act targeted "protesters" and their conduct, its broad application and the powers it conferred on police officers to direct individuals to leave and stay away from business premises, under threat of arrest and criminal penalties, extended beyond what was reasonably appropriate and adapted to serve a legitimate purpose. The Court found that the Act, in its application to forestry land, imposed an undue restriction on the capacity for political communication concerning matters of public interest, such as forestry practices.

The Court ordered that sections 6(1), (2), (3) and (4), s 8(1), s 11(1), (2), (6), (7) and (8), s 13 and Pt 4 of the *Workplaces (Protection from Protesters) Act 2014* (Tas) were invalid in their operation in respect of forestry land or business access areas in relation to forestry land. The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the Special Case.