Parts of NSW鈥檚 harsh anti-protest laws have been declared unconstitutional by the .
The on December 13 that criminalising activities that cause partial closures or redirections around ports and train stations was constitutionally invalid in a case brought by Knitting Nannas Dominique Jacobs and Helen Kvelde.
Jacobs and Kvelde were represented by the Environmental Defenders Office (EDO).
The laws聽were introduced after climate protests at Port Botany caused disruptions. Jacobs and Kvelde had participated in those.
The EDO lawyers argued that the聽anti-protest laws聽鈥渋mpermissibly burdened the implied freedom of political communication鈥 in the Constitution.
to section 214A of the聽Crimes Act 1900, which criminalised remaining 鈥渘ear鈥 any part of a 鈥渕ajor facility鈥 (such as Martin Place Station) if that conduct 鈥渃auses persons attempting to use the major facility to be redirected鈥.
The activists argued that amendments to the Roads Regulation 2018 that altered the definition of 鈥渕ajor bridge, tunnel or road鈥 under section 144G of the聽Roads Act 1993 went聽beyond regulation-making power and therefore invalid.
Justice Michael Walton said the anti-protest laws which criminalise protests around ports, train stations, ferry terminals, airports, power stations, steel works and oil terminals 鈥斅爓ere partially invalid.
He did rule that if disruption damaged the facility, obstructed people trying to use it or led to it being closed completely, then it was an offence.
the law could not criminalise activities which led to a major facility being partially closed, or which meant that people trying to use it had to be redirected.
Kvelde said she was happy the court had given 鈥渟ome acknowledgement to the democratic right to聽protest鈥.
She said the laws are about preventing people from 鈥済etting angry鈥 at the climate culprits 鈥 politicians who have failed to protect us from the climate emergency.