Comments on: Chilling effects and World Youth Day Laws

By: Nick Weston

Nick Weston — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 04:37:04 +0000

An search of Austlii for the exact phrase “inconvenience and annoyance” reveals that this provision appears in numerous NSW regs, including:

* Reg 9 of the Sydney Opera House Trust By Law 2005;
* Reg 16 of the Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust By Law 1997;
* Reg 17 of the Parramatta Stadium Trust By Law 2002;
* Reg 41 of the National Parks and Wildlife (Land Management) Regulation 1995;
* Reg 12 of the Mount Panorama Motor Racing Regulation 2000;
* Reg 12 of the Forestry Regulation 1999;
* Reg 11 of the Zoological Parks Regulation 2004; * Section 9 of the ANZAC Memorial (Building) Act 1923;
* Section 29(g)(i)of the Sydney Cricket and Sports Ground Act 1978 and so on.

Seems to be a NSW thing. Considerting how well some people conduct themselves at the SCG, Bathurst etc it is hard to believe it has not been tested until now. Search results here: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinosrch.cgi?query=%22annoyance+and+inconvenience%22&results=50&submit=Search&mask_world=&mask_path=&callback=on&method=auto&meta=%2Fau

By: ben

ben — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 10:19:26 +0000

Thanks – that’s a very good point. It probably also constitutes a “nuisance”. As they say, “I gets what they gives” to work with…

nb checking up, it wasn’t the cenotaph (a photo of which is here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/spikebot/2048947273/) but one of the pair of plinths at the top end, out side the Reserve Bank, which turns out to be the Commando memorial (http://www.flickr.com/photos/leorex/76637031/)

As it is also likely to be a war memorial, your point still holds.

By: picky reader

picky reader — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 07:05:18 +0000

The “sitting on the military memorial” example is not such a great example to use in order to illustrate the point in question.

That memorial (otherwise known as the Martin Place Cenotaph) would almost certainly constitute a “war memorial” within the meaning of section 8(3) of the Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW), which provides that “a person must not commit any nuisance or any offensive or indecent act in or on any war memorial”.

Assuming for the moment that the pilgrims’ behaviour in question constituted an “offensive act” within the meaning of the Act (and there is some caselaw to suggest that it could – eg R v Smith (1974) 2 NSWLR 586, followed in Spence v Loguch (unreported, CCA, 12 November 1991) and Nasser v Miszalski and 1 Or [2001] NSWSC 848), it is difficult to see how the passerby in question would have been at practical risk of arrest for “politely asking” them to stop that behaviour, regardless of how annoyed (or indeed inconvenienced) the pilgrims might be.

The law might be an ass sometimes but it isn’t as silly as to protect lawbreakers from being annoyed or inconvenienced in their illegal activities!