The Public Order Act 1971

             The underlying purpose of the Public Order Act (1971) and Part II of the Act is to dissuade violent protests from happening at local government institutions and foreign embassies. The act elaborates the legal principles to be followed when unauthorized persons assemble within the Commonwealth premises.[1]

Moreover, section II of the POA stipulates how absolute liability applies to physical elements such as assembly in a Commonwealth territory and the use of weapons within such premises. More importantly, the act provides specific requirements for dispersal of certain gatherings and the legal guidelines to be followed when a person causes an unreasonable obstruction within Commonwealth grounds. Another central purpose of the Public Order Act is to elaborate to interpret the meaning of weapons and offences instigated by the use or the intent to use certain munitions. More importantly, the amendment provides ways to deal with the changing nature of demonstrations. For instance, part 10 of section II elaborates the scenarios in which a protester is liable when they use a weapon. Furthermore, the section develops of collecting to be used in the court of law.

             The 1971 Public Order Act was also created to define the provisions relating to premises of investigatory authorities. The act helps institutions in interpreting specific terms and legal principles to avoid limitations and restrictions due to misinterpretation. For instance, section II (13) explains the power given to an authorised officer and the ways in which they can they can remove protesters from authority locations.[2]

The act entails the nature of regulations that a governor general can make. Other goals of the 1971 bill is to provide provisions regarding consular premises and designated overseas missions, ways in which public officers can prosecute a protester and ways to furnish certain offences in a court of law. Lastly, the act entails modifications if another legal principle amends the compiled law. Some laws have been excluded from the act but they can be integrated in future. Such flexibility makes it an essential piece of the Australia legal system. According to Cook et al., statutory interpretation requires a particular procedure and the rules differ between states and territories, and their clarification made easier by the Public Order Act. The [3]following sections of the article cover a practical example in which the act has been used to interpret a case.

Issue

            The legal question to be answered is whether Matt and Dane were in breach of the Public Order Act. First, the issue section entails facts of the case that provide a legal ambiguity. Matt and Diane are charged under section 6 (1) and section 8 (3) of the Public Order Act. Moreover, the second defendant is liable under section 10 of the Public Order Act.[4]

Matt and Dane were involved in protests in contradiction of the Federal Government’s plans to increase higher education fees. The demonstrations took place outside the Department of Education in Canberra, and it coincided with a visit by the Minister of Education. Approximately 1000 protesters gathered outsides the ministry. Initially, the leaders had planned peaceful protest but the minister refused to speak with the leaders and this led to angry shouting from the crowds. After a while, some protesters turned up carrying cartons of eggs. Earlier, they had agreed that they would not initiate any violent or aggressive approaches but the new group dismissed the agreements and threatened to throw eggs at the officials during the speech. Consequently, a struggle followed and the rogue group forced entry into the main building in an attempt to throw the eggs in the reception area. In the process, police officers standing around the building grabbed Matt and Diane, the protest leader and one of the rogue protesters, respectively. At the time, Diane was carrying the carton of eggs. The crowd was infuriated by the actions of the police. At the point of apprehension, the students had not thrown the egg. The sergeant in charge urged all the protesters to move or else they would be liable under the Public Order Act. Most of the rogue protesters fled but, 200 remained (including Matt and Diane). 20 minutes after the announcement, the sergeant took the names and addresses of 200 students. Consequently, the two students were prosecuted according to the Public Order Act. It is worth noting that there are no conflicting facts and this leads us to the next part: The Rule section.

Rule

            The rule section entails the legal principles that are pertinent in deciding whether Matt and Diane were in breach of duty. Whether by express or implication, the Public Order Act has the power to authorize accounts to be introduced at any particular court. The provision is deemed to vest the law court with authority, and it is not limited by any restrictions to which the court may be subject to. According to section 1A, absolute liability applies if the following physical elements are relevant to the said offence: If the protests are in a territory that is partly or wholly on commonwealth premises and if the person conducts themselves inappropriately when they are in the commonwealth premises.

            In this scenario, the following subsections of the Public Order Act are relevant in deciding the case: section 6 (1), section 8 (3) and 10. Section 6 (1) act authorizes public officers to remove anyone that is likely to cause harm from the premise buildings. The law argues that Matt, Diane, and the protesters are in breach if the assembly is within Commonwealth premises and persons in the meeting conduct themselves in a violent way within the territory. Section 8 covers the rules for dispersal of assemblies. Persons should be dispersed if they take part in a way that features unlawful violence. Matt and Diane were apprehended because they caused obstruction. In particular, Diane was carrying a carton of eggs that would have been used to distract the Minister’s meeting. Section 10 of the public order act specifies the rules to be followed when a person owns a weapon or a missile. An individual carrying a weapon for an offence is against subsection 1 of the act. The rules for determining the court proceedings were determined in section 13 of the Public Order Act.[5]

Essentially, the court officer must certify in writing that the individuals prosecuted were present at the Commonwealth premises and they can confirm that proper certification has been given to the officer. An authorized person is one that has been delegated the duty to report and determine the whether the premises are registered under Commonwealth Lands Acquisition Act of 1989. An authorized officer can be a constable, attorney general or any other individuals that have been authorized to represent the court. An offensive weapon is one that is made to cause injury or incapacitate a person.

            For the case of Diane, the officer had the right to confiscate the carton of eggs because section 13 (D) of the Public Order Act explains that the officer has a right screen and search an individual’s personal effects if they have a reason suggesting that they had an offensive weapon. The rule requires Diane to deposit the carton of eggs because they were likely to be used to causes injury to a person. Another rule is that the individual has to comply with the officer’s demands. After searching, the act authorizes the officer to confiscate any weapon and retain it for any period that they think is necessary. However, the officers are strictly prohibited from demanding a person to remove their clothing.

Analysis

            The analysis section entails an interpretation of the laws stated in the act and its application to the facts of the case, in determining the decision. This part applies the rule to the facts of the case.

Did Matt and Diane breach s 6(1) of the Act?

             Matt and Diane are in breach of section 6 (1) of the Public Order Act for numerous reasons. First, section 6 specifies that any person taking part in a protest that is in a Commonwealth premise in a way that demands reasonable comprehension is in breach of the act. Matt and Diane were already inside the premises of the Ministry’s building and thus, they violated section 6 of the POA. As such, they are punishable on conviction, and they can be charged a fine of no more than 20 penalty units. Secondly, Diane is in breach of the act because she intended to cause unlawful physical violence and damage to property. Before she was apprehended, Diane was carrying a carton of eggs that would have been thrown to the Minister while delivering his speech. Section 6 (1) notes that the individual is in breach and they are subject to absolute liability upon conviction. The act indicates that a person who takes part in an assembly and causes bodily harm to another person or damages property exceeding $ 1500 is guilty of an indictable offence. The unlawful act is punishable by imprisonment for a term, not more than 5 years, if they caused bodily harm. On the other hand, if an individual causes damage to property, they are liable to prison term no more than three years.[6]

            There are a couple of other stipulations elaborated when a person is charged with a breach. Matt and Diane trespassed on premises within Commonwealth territory and thus they are guilty of punishable offence.[7]

Additionally, if they engage in unreasonable obstruction of the vehicles going in and out of a premise, behave in a disorderly manner or refuses to the leaves the premises upon directive from officers of the law, they are charged with 20 penalty units. Absolute liability relates if the individuals cause physical harm to the police or other persons within the premise. If the offence occurs, the constable or protective service officer provides evidence for court proceedings. In cases of obstruction and assault, the individual is punishable by a fine of 20 penalty units. Diane and the rogue students are in breach because they insulted the ministry officials and threatened to throw eggs at them.

 Did Matt, Diane and the protesters whose names were taken in the park across from the Department breach s 8(3) of the Act?

            Matt, Diane and the protesters are in breach of section 8 (3) of the Public Order Act. Subsection 3 notes that if an assembly is not less than 12 persons and they continue to loiter after 15 minutes, then all those persons were in breach. After the police dispersed the protesters, 200 people (including Matt and Diane) remained within the vicinity. The law clearly states that any number beyond 12 contravenes the act, and thus, each of the persons who remained did not comply with the amendment.  Additionally, the section stipulates that if a person conducts themselves in a manner that causes a member of police to apprehend them, then they are in breach. Moreover, if the assembly involves themselves in unlawful physical violence or carry themselves in a way that causes damage, then they are in breach. Officers are also authorised to require information if it is necessary for the interests of security. Under section 13 (1) the sergeant had the power to request Matt and Diane’s personal information. The two students are obliged by the law to provide their personal names, address, reasons for being on the premises and evidence of person’s identity. Moreover, Matt and Diane are required by the act to comply with the requirements and they should not give false information or wrong evidence of identity.

            Diane and Matt cannot make the argument that they did not receive official orders. The Public order act specifies that persons can be given directions orally, in such a manner that is audible enough. When the students were protesting, the sergeant was clear in his arrest statement.  Before dispersion, the police officer made the following declaration: “In pursuant of the Public Order Act, I Sergeant Turner asks you all to move. If you ignore this instruction, you may be liable to penalties as specified in the law.” Matt and Diane were given up to 20 minutes to clear the building premises. Thereafter, the officers had to take their names and addresses before charging them. Thus, they are in breach and they are likely charged with imprisonment for duration not more than 6 months. However, if a person has a reasonable excuse, they are required to provide their reasons in the court of law. According to section 8, if the individuals protesting cause any form of physical violence or damages, then they are guilty of an offence that is punishable. The fine imposed should not be more than 20 penalty units.

Did Diane breach s 10(1) of the Act?

             According to the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, Diane was in breach of section 10 (1) of the Public Order Act because of the following reasons: Firstly, the law contends that a person who is in a commonwealth territory while taking part in a protest should not have in his or her possession a weapon, any destructive or repulsive object.[8]

Moreover, they should not discharge or use the weapon. A weapon or missile is any material, apparatus or implements meant to cause disruption or personal injury. In this scenario, the eggs qualify as an offensive weapon.  The individual is guilty of an offence if he/she throws or releases the weapon or repulsive object or substance. Although Diane did not throw the eggs at the Minister, she was planning to use them when the Minister’s speech began. More importantly, the act stipulates that if an individual throws the weapon (plans to throw the weapon) and consequently injures another person, then they are subjected to a conviction in the court of law. Section 10 (1) notes that for offences outlined in this part, liability applies to any physical element or circumstance of an offence. However, par 1 does not apply if an individual has a reasonable excuse. Absolute liability only applies to a physical element of a circumstance, if a person is in a territory of the commonwealth. If an offence occurs under paragraph 1 subsection a, then the individual will be fined but for not more than 20 penalty units. Additionally, if the individual is in breach of paragraph 2 and 3, they can be imprisoned for a period not exceeding 6 months. Under the POA, a person is guilty if they use an offensive weapon, and they could be imprisoned for up to 12 months.[9]         

             Diane engaged in unreasonable obstruction because she trespassed on the premises and at the same time, she carried a weapon.[10]

Moreover, while intruding, the student behaved in an offensive manner. Being on the premises, she refused to leave them and acted against authority of the police. Therefore, absolute liability applies to the circumstances of the offences. The officer had a right to remove Diane from the premises and thus, she does not have a legal backing suggesting that she was thrown out forcefully. Moreover, she interfered with the discharged of duties by the officials of the ministry of education.

Conclusion

            In the case of Matt and Diane are guilty of a breach as stipulated in the Public Order Act. In the first instance, the two students are in violation of section 6 (1) are they are likely to be held accountable by the court of law. Even though they did not cause physical damages during the protest, they trespassed and disrupted activities at the Ministry of education. In the second argument, Matt, Diane, and the 200 students are likely to be held liable for breach of section 8 (3) of the public order act. The law is clear that there should be no more than 12 persons after dispersion. In the last part, Diane is liable because she was carrying a repulsive object that could cause personal injury and disruption. Thus, she is likely to be convicted for breaching the act. The law stipulates that if persons in the assembly commit physical violence to another person or suggest that they would commit violent acts, they are subject to an imprisonment of not more than 12 months. Protests have shaped the world we live because we associated the activity with revolution and democracy.  However, they need to be regulated to prevent injury and damages. If the movement is fundamentally connected democratic politics, then it is imperative to include protection of protesters in the legal system. Absolute liability applies to physical elements of circumstances of an offence if the person carried out the wrongdoing on commonwealth territory.

Works Cited

Cook, Catriona, Robin Creyke, Robert Geddes, David Hamer, Tristan S. Taylor, and Geoff   Pryor. (Laying Down the Law. 2015). Print

Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Act 1971

(Cth)

Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth)

[1] Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Act 1971

(Cth) s2

[2] Ibid s2

[3] Cook, Catriona, Robin Creyke, Robert Geddes, David Hamer, Tristan S. Taylor, and Geoff Pryor. (Laying Down the Law. ,9th edn, 2015). Print

[4] Ibid s2

[5] Ibid, 399

[6] Ibid s2

[7] Ibid s2

[8] Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) s2

[9] Ibid s2

[10] Ibid, 400