Coleman v Power
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Coleman v Power | |
High Court of Australia |
|
| Full case name | Coleman v Power & Ors |
| Date decided | 1 September 2004 |
| Citations | (2004) 220 CLR 1 |
| Judges sitting | Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne and Heydon JJ |
| Case history | |
|---|---|
| Prior actions: | none |
| Subsequent actions: | none |
| Case opinions | |
| (4:3) The conviction for using insulting words should be set aside, and the appeal allowed. (per McHugh, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ) | |
Coleman v Power (2004) 220 CLR 1 is a High Court of Australia case that deals with the implied right to freedom of political communication found in the Australian Constitution.
Contents |
[edit] Background
Coleman was a law and politics student from Townsville. He started handing out fliers in a shopping centre alleging police corruption in the Queensland police force. He was asked to stop by Power, a police officer, but refused. Coleman was subsequently arrested for assaulting language, but violently resisted arrest. He was charged with using "insulting words" under the Vagrancy Act.
Coleman argued he was not guilty of using insulting words because they were political communication and thus protected under the implied freedom of political communication. A magistrate found him guilty, but he then appealed. All subsequent appeals failed. He then appealed to the High Court.
[edit] Decision
The court held that his conviction should be set aside.
Gummow, Hayne and Kirby JJ thought the Act didn't actually cover Coleman's words. What he said was not insulting as intended to be outlawed by the Act. The court's majority accepted that communications alleging corruption of police were protected by the implied right to freedom of political communication. They also accepted that political communication could include insults. Further, they noted that insulting words were a well-known tradition in Australian politics from "its earliest history".
The court also held that even if insulting words were not political communication, the appropriate adapted intent of the Vagrancy Act did not cover behaviour of the nature displayed by Coleman.
[edit] See also
[edit] References
- Winterton, G. et al. Australian federal constitutional law: commentary and materials, 1999. LBC Information Services, Sydney.
