Commissioner of Police v Da Costa-Reidel (on behalf of Stop Adani Sydney)

The case involved the Commissioner of Police seeking a prohibition order against a proposed public assembly organised by Stop Adani Sydney. The assembly, which aimed to protest against the Adani coal mine, was planned to follow a major thoroughfare, potentially disrupting traffic and emergency services. The protest coincided with the Mardi Gras Fair Day, further exacerbating potential disruptions. Despite alternative routes being offered by the Commissioner, the defendant refused to accept them, leading to the Commissioner's application for a prohibition order under section 25(1) of the Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW). The court had to determine whether the Commissioner's application was justified and whether the public interest considerations raised by the defendant warranted a different outcome.

The legal issues before the court included whether the Commissioner had the authority to prohibit the protest under the relevant legislation and whether the defendant's refusal to accept alternative routes justified the issuance of a prohibition order. Additionally, the court needed to consider the public interest arguments raised by the defendant and how these should be weighed against the potential disruption to traffic and emergency services. The court had to balance the right to protest with the need to maintain public order and safety.

The court found that the Commissioner had the statutory authority to prohibit the proposed assembly due to the significant disruption it would cause. The court held that the Commissioner's decision to offer alternative routes was reasonable, and the defendant's refusal to accept them was unjustified. The court considered the public interest arguments but found them insufficient to override the need to maintain public order and safety. As a result, the court granted the prohibition order. The court also dismissed the defendant's application for costs, finding that the public interest considerations did not warrant a costs order in favour of the defendant.

In summary, the court granted the Commissioner's application for a prohibition order and dismissed the defendant's application for costs. The court's decision emphasised the importance of balancing the right to protest with the need to maintain public order and safety, particularly in situations where significant disruption to traffic and emergency services is likely.