Lees v State of New South Wales
Case
•
[2025] NSWSC 1209
•16 October 2025
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Lees v State of New South Wales [2025] NSWSC 1209
[2025] NSWSC 1209
16 October 2025
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In Lees v State of New South Wales, the plaintiff, Lees, challenged the constitutionality of a New South Wales statute that imposed restrictions on protests in or near places of worship. The dispute centered on the implied freedom of communication on government or political matters, which is protected under the Australian Constitution. Lees argued that the restrictions imposed by the statute unjustifiably burdened his right to protest in a manner that was otherwise exempt from police direction. The case was heard and determined in the High Court of Australia.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the statutory provision that restricted protests in or near places of worship was proportionate to the legitimate aim of protecting religious freedom. The court had to assess whether the burden imposed on political communication by the provision was justifiable in a free and democratic society. The test for proportionality required the court to consider whether the restriction was appropriate and adapted to achieve the legitimate aim, and whether there were alternative approaches that would impose a significantly lesser burden on the right to protest.
The court held that the provision was invalid because it placed an unjustified burden on the implied freedom of communication on government or political matters. The court found that the purpose of the provision was legitimate, but there were alternative approaches that would impose a significantly lesser burden on the right to protest. These alternatives included imposing restrictions on the time, place, and manner of protests, rather than an outright ban in certain areas. The court concluded that the provision was not proportionate and therefore invalid.
The High Court of Australia invalidated the statutory provision that restricted protests in or near places of worship, finding it to be an unjustified burden on the implied freedom of communication on government or political matters. The court ordered that the provision be declared invalid and of no effect.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the statutory provision that restricted protests in or near places of worship was proportionate to the legitimate aim of protecting religious freedom. The court had to assess whether the burden imposed on political communication by the provision was justifiable in a free and democratic society. The test for proportionality required the court to consider whether the restriction was appropriate and adapted to achieve the legitimate aim, and whether there were alternative approaches that would impose a significantly lesser burden on the right to protest.
The court held that the provision was invalid because it placed an unjustified burden on the implied freedom of communication on government or political matters. The court found that the purpose of the provision was legitimate, but there were alternative approaches that would impose a significantly lesser burden on the right to protest. These alternatives included imposing restrictions on the time, place, and manner of protests, rather than an outright ban in certain areas. The court concluded that the provision was not proportionate and therefore invalid.
The High Court of Australia invalidated the statutory provision that restricted protests in or near places of worship, finding it to be an unjustified burden on the implied freedom of communication on government or political matters. The court ordered that the provision be declared invalid and of no effect.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Constitutional Law
Legal Concepts
-
Implied Freedom of Communication
-
Proportionality
-
Judicial Review
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
R v Kahtan ABDUL-WAHAB No 3 [2025] NSWLC 7
Cases Citing This Decision
4
R v Kahtan ABDUL-WAHAB No 3
[2025] NSWLC 7
R v Kahtan ABDUL-WAHAB No 3
[2025] NSWLC 7
Cases Cited
44
Statutory Material Cited
14
Antaw v The Queen; Kitson v The Queen; Lee v The Queen
[2021] NSWDC 820
APLA Ltd v Legal Services Commissioner (NSW)
[2005] HCA 44
Carrigan v Honourable Senator Michaelia Cash
[2017] FCAFC 86