A challenge to the validity of so-called “ag-gag” laws in New South Wales, which restrict animal activists’ ability to surreptitiously film farming practices and publish the results, has been thrown out by the High Court of Australia.
Key points:
- The two plaintiffs, an activist group and its director, argued the law prevented them from publishing recordings showing animal cruelty at farms
- They sought to challenge the Surveillance Devices Act 2007, which regulates the installation, use and maintenance of surveillance devices
- But the High Court threw out the challenge on the grounds the law struck the right balance, in protecting farmers’ privacy
The group that brought the challenge had told the High Court the laws interfered with animal activists’ implied right to freedom of political communication.
But the government argued the laws were reasonable and necessary to protect farmers’ privacy and safety.
Today, the High Court agreed, finding the laws achieved the right balance.
Group argued law prevented them from revealing animal cruelty
The matter before the court dealt with the Surveillance Devices Act 2007, which regulates the installation, use and maintenance of surveillance devices.
Sections of the act prohibit installation and use of surveillance devices at agricultural properties as well as the publication of a recording or report that was obtained through that surveillance.
The court heard the activist group, a not-for-profit charity, had “agitated and advocated for political and legal changes to animal agricultural practices and animal welfare standards with the objective of ending modern farming and slaughtering practices”.
Court documents state the group had published photographs, videos and audiovisual recordings of animal agricultural practices in New South Wales.
A second plaintiff, the group’s director, had also obtained recordings of the farming or slaughter of animals through “purported acts of trespass”.
Both groups argued the laws “impermissibly burdened their ability to publish information… that showed animal cruelty practices.”
But the court found the provisions of the law had a legitimate purpose, in protecting privacy.
It found that the relevant sections of the act “imposed an incremental burden on a person’s ability to publish records of lawful activities obtained surreptitiously and by conduct which amounted to trespass”.
“[The relevant sections of the act] achieved an adequate balance between the benefit they sought to achieve and the adverse effect on the implied freedom,” the High Court said in its judgement.
.