Login
Coal protest prohibited by NSW Supreme Court
A planned 30-hour blockade at a Newcastle port to protest new coal projects was prohibited by the NSW Supreme Court.
Naomi Neilson
Environmentalist advocacy group Rising Tide was hit with a prohibition order over a “protestival” it had planned at the Port of Newcastle between the 22nd and 25th of this month.
“A 30-hour interruption to the operations of a busy port is an imposition on the lawful activities of others that goes far beyond what the people affected should be expected to tolerate in order to facilitate public expression of protest and opinion on the important issues with which the organisers are concerned,” Justice Fagan said.
“The impact on others is excessive both in kind and duration.”
Rising Tide organiser and law student Zack Schofield said they would carefully read Justice Fagan’s orders before the protest.
“The main public safety issue here is the climate pollution caused by the continued expansion of the coal and gas industries,” he said.
“That’s why we are protesting in our own backyard: the Newcastle coal port, scene of Australia’s single biggest contribution to climate change.”
An estimated 1,000 people are likely to be involved in the blockade from early Saturday, 23 November, to 10am or 2pm the next day.
Up to 5,000 people would also be involved in the land protest on an adjoining parkland between the Friday and the following Monday.
Rising Tide asked the court to allow the protestors to continue under the protection of the Summary Offences Act, where police would not be able to make arrests for infringements to the Marine Safety Act 1998 (NSW) by people using small watercraft in the blockade.
However, Justice Fagan said it was “not unrealistic” to assume there would be a risk that weather conditions could make it near impossible for some protestors to paddle back to shore.
If capsizes or collisions occur, Justice Fagan said this would attract the intervention of a police propeller-driven rescue craft, which, in turn, would risk injury “among such a congested assembly”.
The need for police to have a full range of powers “is amplified … where the conduct of participants, including conduct that may necessitate their rescue, may endanger the officers themselves”.
As for the protest in the park, planned for “such an extended period”, Justice Fagan said it “involves an unreasonable interference with the convenience of other citizens in their enjoyment of public park”.
Organiser and applicant to the proceedings, Briohny Coglin, said it was a “sad day for the right to free speech for all Australians”.
“Rising Tide is disappointed with the decision and remains of the view that the safest way to hold the event is with the form one protections in place and working constructively with police towards our shared goal of ensuring everyone’s safety,” she said.
Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
