Clubb v EdwardsPreston v AveryCitation:[2019] HCA 11Before:Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon, Edelman JJDate:10 Apr 2019Case Number:M46/2018, H2/2018Read more

Clubb v EdwardsPreston v AveryCitation:[2019] HCA 11Before:Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon, Edelman JJDate:10 Apr 2019Case Number:M46/2018, H2/2018Read more

The provisions prohibiting certain communications and activities within access zones are for a legitimate purpose, are suitable, necessary and adequate in balance, and do not impermissibly burden the implied freedom of communication about governmental or political matters.

Parties
Appellant: Unknown Appellant(s); Respondent: Unknown Respondent(s)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Law Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Implied Freedom of Communication, Abortion Law, Statutory Interpretation, Proportionality, Severance and Reading Down
Constitutional Law Implied Freedom of Communication Abortion Law Statutory Interpretation Proportionality Severance and Reading Down

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Unknown Appellant(s)

Appellant

Unknown Respondent(s)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Law Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s 185D of Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 (Vic) and s 9(2) of Reproductive Health (Access to Terminations) Act 2013 (Tas) impermissibly burden the implied freedom of communication about governmental or political matters
  2. 2 Whether the provisions are for a legitimate purpose and are reasonably appropriate and adapted to that purpose
  3. 3 Whether the provisions are suitable, necessary and adequate in balance

Ratio Decidendi

The provisions prohibiting certain communications and activities within access zones are for a legitimate purpose, are suitable, necessary and adequate in balance, and do not impermissibly burden the implied freedom of communication about governmental or political matters.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The challenged provisions are constitutionally valid.
  • No order as to costs.