Clubb v Edwards; Preston v Avery (2019) HCA 11
In Clubb v Edwards; Preston v Avery (2019), the High Court of Australia considered whether "safe access zone" laws in Victoria and Tasmania (which prohibit certain communications and protests about abortion within 150 metres of abortion clinics) impermissibly burden the implied freedom of political communication under the Australian Constitution. In Victoria, the first appellant was convicted under section 185D of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 (Vic) for engaging in prohibited behaviour within a safe access zone. In Tasmania, the second appellant was convicted under section 9(2) of the Reproductive Health (Access to Terminations) Act 2013 (Tas) for similar conduct.
The majority of the High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the provisions in both states. The Court found that the laws imposed only a slight, geographically confined, and content-specific burden on the implied freedom of communication. The restrictions applied only to communications about abortion that could be seen or heard by persons accessing the clinics and were limited to the immediate vicinity (within 150 metres) of those facilities. The Court held that the laws served a legitimate purpose: protecting the privacy, dignity, and emotional wellbeing of individuals seeking abortion services. The majority found the provisions to be suitable, necessary, and proportionate, thereby passing the test for constitutional validity. The High Court dismissed both challenges, concluding that the limited burden on the implied freedom was justified by the compelling interest in ensuring unimpeded, respectful access to lawful medical services.
Topics
Geographical location
Keywords
Year
- 2019
External URL
Court
Type
Jurisdiction