Protest @ Ruddock's House

After some trauma in the courts we were granted the limited protection of an official protest outside the house of Ruddock. He was overseas at the time, so couldn't even claim to have been inconvenienced by it. But it did dramatically raise the media profile of the event. A couple of arrests, including one legal observer, but nothing serious.

The plod went to court to try to get a NoI denied for the protest outside Ruddock's house. They lost, and the judgement is now up on the web. To summarise: The plod called it "an order for prohibition", which it is not; motorists being inconvenienced is not a sufficient reason to deny the protest; and the plod get to pay costs.

From the Judgement

Contrary to what might appear to be the case, given the terminology of the section, that is an order for prohibition of an assembly, the making of a prohibition order does not render the conduct of or participation in any assembly unlawful. I refer to the earlier decisions of this Court, in Commissioner of Police v Vranjkovic, unreported 28 November 1980, per Lee J, and Commissioner of Police v Allen (1984), 14 A Crim R 244, per Hunt J, as he then was. The making of a prohibition order merely deprives participants of protection that s24 would otherwise afford them.

This bit is especially appropriate for us:

18 There is, in my opinion, no evidence from which I could conclude that there would be likely to be any breach of the peace. I say this, having had regard to the submissions put by counsel for the Commissioner to the effect that, given the traffic congestion that can be expected, it is likely that tempers will be frayed and there may be some confrontation. In my opinion, that submission does less than justice to the commonsense and goodwill of the residents of suburban Sydney, who may be frustrated by any delays that they encounter, but are not, in my opinion, likely to engage in such conduct as would create a breach of the peace.

Then later (s20)

Public facilities are to be shared and occasionally even a regular user has to give way to the claims of others. It is in the very nature of the entitlement to peaceful protest that disruption will be caused to others.

And the best bit:

25 I order the Commissioner to pay the defendant's costs.