Corneloup -v- Launceston City Council and Anor (‏‏ (2016

Federal Court Case Results 

Written by Caleb Corneloup


A few years ago the High Court made a ruling on an Adelaide City Council By-law prohibiting preaching on public roads without permission. The media reported the case as a victory for the Adelaide City Council and a loss for the Adelaide Street Preachers. However the High Court actually ruled substantially in favour of the Street Preachers.

In Attorney-General (SA) v Corporation of the City of Adelaide (2013) where the High court upheld the validity of the Adelaide by-law Justices Crennan and Kiefel JJ, with whom Bell J agreed, stated;

Given that the discretion must be exercised conformably with the purposes of the By-law, it may be assumed that permission will be denied only where the activities in question cannot be accommodated having regard to the safety and convenience of road users.

And Hayne J said;

On the proper construction of the impugned by-law, the concern of those who must decide whether to grant or withhold consent is confined to the practical question of whether the grant of permission will likely create an unacceptable obstruction of the road in question.

Recently the Federal Court has handed a decision which has confirmed the fact that although City Councils may create By-laws prohibiting preaching without permission, they cannot simply refuse permission at their whim. Caleb Corneloup was again a plaintiff in the recent Federal Court decision.


In Corneloup -v- Launceston City Council and Anor (2016), Tracy J, in the Federal Court stated;

Even had the Guidelines been applicable to the exercise of the power to grant a permit under cl 12 of the Malls By-Law they would have been inconsistent with the By-Law because it (the by-law) contemplated that preaching and political addresses might take place in the malls if a permit were granted.

Further down he continues to say;

Her (the decision maker) resort to the Guidelines was also errant because it led her to have regard to a material and irrelevant consideration, namely, that preaching and public speaking were not permissible in the malls.

This decision confirms the fact that the very existence of the by-law prohibiting preaching without permission assumes permission can be granted. Therefore City Councils can expect to have to give permits and conform to the statements of the High Court quoted above.



http://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2016/2016fca0974

http://www.kelledyjones.com.au/lg-alert/2016/08/30/back-law-basics/

https://blogs.unimelb.edu.au/opinionsonhigh/2013/10/14/stone-corneloup/