Meyerhoff v Darwin City Council

The appeal in Meyerhoff v Darwin City Council was brought by the appellant, Gary Meyerhoff, against his conviction in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction. Meyerhoff was convicted of contravening Darwin City By-law 97(1)(b) by affixing a handbill to a fixture in a street without a permit. The sole ground of appeal was whether the Magistrate erred in finding that the Darwin City By-law did not breach the implied right of free speech and political communication contained in the Australian Constitution.

The legal issue before the court was whether Darwin City By-law 97 was invalid because it was repugnant to the implied freedom of communication about government and political matters. The By-law prohibited the affixing of handbills to fixtures in streets without a permit. Meyerhoff argued that the permit system made the relevant freedom of communication illusory due to the Council's unqualified right to refuse a permit and the lack of fixed criteria for exercising this discretion.

The court found that while the By-law did burden freedom of communication, a mere restriction was not sufficient to invalidate the By-law. The By-law was reasonably appropriate and adapted to serve a legitimate purpose, which was compatible with the constitutionally prescribed system of government. The By-law's purpose was to regulate the affixing of handbills in an orderly manner to maintain the amenity of the environment and avoid waste and litter. The By-law applied generally to all types of handbills and was limited in its operation to fixtures in public streets. There were ample alternative means of communication available.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the By-law was not repugnant to the Australian Constitution. The By-law was an appropriate and reasonable regulation in the interests of an ordered society and was commensurate with the constitutionally required freedom of communication.