MONIS, Man Haron v R; DROUDIS, Amirah v R [2011] NSWCCA 231

MONIS, Man Haron v R; DROUDIS, Amirah v R [2011] NSWCCA 231

Section 471.12 of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), properly construed, does not impermissibly burden the implied freedom of political communication because the term 'offensive' is limited to conduct calculated or likely to arouse significant anger, significant resentment, outrage, disgust or hatred in the mind of a reasonable person, accommodating the robust nature of Australian political debate. The provision is valid as it is reasonably appropriate and adapted to a legitimate end and compatible with the constitutional system.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal (final Disposition of Appeal)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
['implied Freedom of Political Communication' "statutory Construction of 'offensive'" 'validity of S 471.12 Criminal Code' 'criminalisation of Offensive Postal Communications']
['constitutional Law' 'criminal Law' 'statutory Interpretation'] ['implied Freedom of Political Communication' "statutory Construction of 'offensive'" 'validity of S 471.12 Criminal Code' 'criminalisation of Offensive Postal Communications']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal (final Disposition of Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether s 471.12 Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) infringes the implied freedom of political communication' "Proper construction of the word 'offensive' in s 471.12" 'Whether s 471.12 is reasonably appropriate and adapted to serve a legitimate end compatible with the constitutionally prescribed system of government']

Ratio Decidendi

Section 471.12 of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), properly construed, does not impermissibly burden the implied freedom of political communication because the term 'offensive' is limited to conduct calculated or likely to arouse significant anger, significant resentment, outrage, disgust or hatred in the mind of a reasonable person, accommodating the robust nature of Australian political debate. The provision is valid as it is reasonably appropriate and adapted to a legitimate end and compatible with the constitutional system.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • ['Appeals dismissed.']