Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Sri & Ors [2020] QSC 246
Date: 8 August 2020
Court: Supreme Court of Queensland
Judicial Officer: Applegarth J
Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) Sections: ss 13, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23
Rights Considered: Freedom of movement; Right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief; Right to freedom of expression; Right to peaceful assembly and freedom of association; Taking part in public life
Other Legislation: Peaceful Assembly Act 1992 (Qld); Public Health Act 2005 (Qld)
Keywords: Political Freedoms
The Attorney-General sought urgent injunctions to restrain the second, third and fourth respondents from attending or encouraging others to attend a planned protest which included a sit-in on the Story Bridge planned for 8 August 2020. Justice Applegarth considered that the following rights under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) were relevant: freedom of movement (section 19); freedom of thought, conscience, religious belief (section 20); freedom of expression (section 21); peaceful assembly and freedom of association (section 22); and taking part in public life (section 23). His Honour reached the conclusion that the orders sought were appropriate because the assembly involved a planned sit-down of a significant duration, which placed a significant burden on the rights of other citizens. The Queensland Human Rights Commission intervened in the proceedings.
The Attorney-General sought urgent injunctions to restrain the second, third and fourth respondents from attending or encouraging others to attend a planned protest which included a sit-in on the Story Bridge planned for 8 August 2020. The second respondent was Jonathan Sri, the Councillor for the Gabba Ward of Brisbane City Council and a member of the Queensland Greens.
Justice Applegarth was assisted by submissions made by the Queensland Human Rights Commission, who intervened in the matter.
Justice Applegarth confirmed that the Attorney-General applied for the injunctions in the interest of protecting ‘public health and comfort’: at [2].
His Honour noted that the relevant rights engaged under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) were ‘freedom of movement (section 19); freedom of thought, conscience, religious belief (section 20); freedom of expression (section 21); peaceful assembly and freedom of association (section 22); and taking part in public life (section 23)’, but that these rights ‘may be subject under law to reasonable limits that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom’ pursuant to section 13: at [28]. His Honour also noted that the case involved ‘balancing the legitimate right to public assembly in all of its forms, including sit-down protests, against the public interest, the threatened obstruction of traffic [which] is a significant burden upon the public and upon individuals’: at [35].
His Honour concluded that the orders sought were appropriate on the basis that this assembly involved a planned sit-down which was to be ‘significant and long-lasting’ and in circumstances where ‘the obvious intent of the organisers [was] to engage in civil disobedience’: at [35]. Further, the event was to impose ‘a significant burden upon the rights of other citizens and upon the public more generally’ and the organisers had not attempted to engage the processes provided for in the Public Assembly Act 1992 (Qld): at [36].
His Honour granted ex parte injunctions against the third and fourth respondents from attending or encouraging others to attend the protest. His Honour declined to make orders against Councillor Sri, ‘in light of the state of the evidence and his submissions as to his involvement or lack of involvement in today’s planned event’ and because ‘[h]e mentioned in email communications that he thought that the event had been called off’: at [7].
Visit the judgement: Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Sri & Ors [2020] QSC 246