Corporation of the City of Adelaide v Corneloup

The Corporation of the City of Adelaide appealed to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia against a decision of the District Court, which had declared parts of By-Law No. 4 - Roads (the by-law) invalid. The dispute arose after the appellant prosecuted the respondents for preaching and canvassing in Rundle Mall without permission. The District Court had found that the words "preach," "canvass," and "harangue" in clause 2.3, and the entirety of clause 2.8 of the by-law, were beyond the appellant's by-law making powers.

The central legal issues before the Full Court were whether the regulation of preaching, canvassing, and haranguing under clause 2.3, and the entirety of clause 2.8, were validly made by the appellant. Specifically, the court had to determine if these provisions were authorised by the relevant sections of the *Local Government Act 1999* (SA) and the *Local Government Act 1934* (SA), and whether they were consistent with the implied freedom of political communication under the Commonwealth Constitution.

The Full Court dismissed the appeal, holding that clause 2.3 must be read down by striking out the words "preach," "canvass," and "harangue," and that clause 2.8 must be struck out entirely. The court reasoned that the regulation of all preaching, canvassing, and haranguing was not a by-law "about the use of roads for" the purposes prescribed by section 239 of the *Local Government Act 1999*. Furthermore, the restriction of this conduct was not for the prevention of nuisances under the *Local Government Act 1934*. The court also found that Regulation 13 of the *Local Government (Implementation) Regulations 1999* was limited to physical obstructions and could not be construed to apply to obstructions caused by gatherings of people. While acknowledging that the by-law was generally made for the convenience, comfort, and safety of inhabitants, the court found that the regulated conduct, as a whole, was inconsistent with the implied constitutional freedom of political communication and could not be read down to conform with the Constitution.