COLEMAN VS AUSTRALIA (2006) MADI AND CAITLIN

THE FACTS  On 20 December 1998-Mr Coleman delivered a speech on various topics, including bills of rights, freedom of speech and land rights in the Townsville shopping mall.  On 29 August 1999, Mr. Coleman again stood in the Townsville shopping mall (without a council permit) and delivered a speech. When police tried to remove him he sat down and refused to move.

THE CHARGES  After the first incident, he was charged, convicted and fined for 'taking part in a public address in a pedestrian mall' without a council permit. Mr. Coleman refused to pay the fine.  After the second, was charged with failing to pay a fine and for obstructing police. He was arrested and held by police for five days.

RIGHTS VIOLATED  Article 19(2) - Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice. - Simply put, the right to freedom of speech

WHAT THE UNHRC HAD TO SAY The Committee notes that it is for the State party to show that the restriction on the author’s freedom of speech was necessary in the present case. Even if a State party may introduce a permit system aiming to strike a balance between an individual’s freedom of speech and the general interest in maintaining public order in a certain area, such a system must not operate in a way that is incompatible with article 19 of the Covenant. In the present case, the author made a public address on issues of public interest.

On the evidence of the material before the Committee, there was no suggestion that the author’s address was either threatening, unduly disruptive or otherwise likely to jeopardise public order in the mall; indeed, police officers present, rather than seeking to curtail the author’s address, allowed him to proceed while videotaping him. The author delivered his speech without a permit. For this, he was fined and, when he failed to pay the fine, he was held in custody for five days. The Committee considers that the State party’s reaction in response to the author’s conduct was disproportionate and amounted to a restriction of the author’s freedom of speech which was not compatible with article 19, paragraph 3, of the Covenant.

HOW THE VIOLATION COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED 1. Coleman could have bought a permit 2. Parliament could have implemented freedom of speech into domestic law 3. The incident could have been further looked into to establish if article 19(3) was apparent 4. Laws regarding the need to obtain a permit for public speeches, should have been made more known 5. After Coleman’s first offence he should have only been given a warning, then the laws should have been reviewed

PONTS OF DEBATE  There is no set criteria for obtaining the permit Coleman was expected to apply for. That means permission or denial is based entirely on the beliefs of the person reviewing the application.  Under the Peaceful Assemblies Act (1992) “A person has the right to assemble peacefully with others in a public place”. Had Coleman spoken with a group, or even one other, he could not have been charged

EFFECTIVENESS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW  The United Nations Human Rights Commission did an independent review of the case to establish if Coleman’s charge was in violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights  Found the State in breach, but had no legal power to enforce the rights  Due to lack of legal power within Australia, international law was ineffective. (Case too small to go to the ICJ)

EFFECTIVENESS OF DOMESTIC LAW  Freedom of speech is not strictly mentioned in the Constitution or in Legislation, thus parliament has not fulfilled responsibility of enacting international agreements into domestic policy.  There has been a Proposal for freedom of speech to be included in an Australian Bill of Rights (however Bill of Rights still in debate)  Overall, the law has been ineffective in protecting Coleman's rights to freedom of speech, and have in fact been tricky by "catching out" Coleman through by-laws.

ACTIONS BY PARLIMENT  Knocked back proposal to amend the Constitution so that freedom of speech was included  Freedom of speech has been incorporated in some parts of the law eg. Racial Vilification Act, Racial Discrimination Act, criteria for implementing Natural Justice.  Ultimately, because freedom of speech hasn't been explicitly defined and protected in the constitution or legislation, Coleman has suffered, one of his basic rights being removed

FOR FURTHER READING       s     e/9/node/4/filename/australia_t5_iccpr_1157_2003  