Queensland council blocked from evicting homeless sleeping in tents at city park
Justice Paul Smith issued the injunction on Friday as part of an ongoing human rights challenge by 11 residents of Goodfellows Road, a park in Kallangur. It prevents the City of Moreton Bay from evicting anyone from the park while an application challenging the council's homelessness policies continues.
'If shelter was to be taken away, the applicants would be placed at serious risk of harm from being exposed to the elements,' Smith said.
sign up: au breaking news email
The council changed its local laws to ban homelessness in February. In April, it started evicting residents of several homeless shelters with the aid of police, council rangers, a bulldozer and an excavator.
Law firms Hall & Wilcox and Basic Rights Queensland challenged the practice under Queensland's Human Rights Act.
Many of the residents of Goodfellows Road previously resided in Eddie Hyland Park in Lawnton, before they were moved on from there in April.
They were then issued notices ordering them to move on from the new park in June.
Smith said he was persuaded that there was a prima facie case suggesting the council had failed to make proper consideration of potential breaches of the Human Rights Act before enacting its new local laws. Under Queensland law, human rights may be limited by government action but only after consideration and where doing so is proportionate.
'I find there is a reasonable argument on the part of the applicants that the relevant decisions infringe these particular rights and insufficient considerations given to those rights before the decisions were made,' he said.
Sign up to Breaking News Australia
Get the most important news as it breaks
after newsletter promotion
Smith found the council would be harmed less by his granting the injunction than those sleeping rough would be if he did not grant it.
'I can understand that some of the community might complain about homeless people living in their midst in tents,' he said. 'On the other hand, the Human Rights Act provides protections to all citizens, including the homeless, and I consider it to be wrong not to protect vulnerable applicants from the potential loss of their homes in the midst of winter.
'There is a risk in my mind that the applicants may lose their homes'.
The council's lawyer, Scott McCleod, argued that the City of Moreton Bay had promised in correspondence to the court not to enforce the notices. However, Smith said it had not made a formal undertaking to allow the applicants to stay.
Barrister Matthew Hickey, acting for the applicants, argued they were vulnerable people who had nowhere else to go if evicted again.
Under the order, the council is still permitted to enforce local laws intended to ensure public health and safety that existed before it banned homelessness.
The injunction will apply until the case is heard in full in November. The court heard the government may request a later date.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
UK rights watchdog warns against ‘heavy-handed' policing of Gaza protests
The UK's official human rights watchdog has written to ministers and police expressing concern at a potentially 'heavy-handed' approach to protests about Gaza and urging clearer guidance for officers in enforcing the law. In the letter to Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, and Mark Rowley, the head of the Metropolitan police, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) said the perception that peaceful protest could attract disproportionate police attention 'undermines confidence in our human rights protections'. Kishwer Falkner, the EHRC chair, wrote that it was vital that any policing of protests was both proportionate and based on clear legal tests. The letter raised concerns about 'reports of police engagement with individuals participating in forms of protest that are not linked to any proscribed organisation'. It cited as an example the case of Laura Murton, first revealed by the Guardian. Keny police threatened her with arrest under the Terrorism Act for holding a Palestinian flag and having signs saying 'Free Gaza' and 'Israel is committing genocide'. Murton filmed police telling her that even such general statements 'all come under proscribed groups, which are terror groups that have been dictated by the government'. During the exchange, one officer said the phrase 'Free Gaza' was 'supportive of Palestine Action', that it was illegal 'to express an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation', and that she had committed that offence with her signs. Falkner wrote: 'Whilst we acknowledge police expertise in assessing security risks, we want to emphasise that any interference with protest rights must be lawful and assessed case by case. 'Heavy-handed policing or blanket approaches risk creating a chilling effect, deterring citizens from exercising their fundamental rights to freedom of expression and assembly through fear of possible consequences. 'This concern extends beyond those directly affected by police engagement to the broader health of our democracy, because the perception that peaceful protest may attract disproportionate police attention undermines confidence in our human rights protections.' Falkner urged ministers and police to make sure all officers were given 'clear and consistent guidance on their human rights obligations in relation to protest', which should 'ensure that the appropriate balance is maintained between public safety and the protection of essential human rights'. Murton told the Guardian last week that her solicitors had issued a letter of claim on her behalf to the chief constable of Kent police, in what was also said to be a move to remind other police forces of their responsibilities towards peaceful protests. Falkner said in a statement: 'The right to peaceful protest is fundamental to our democracy and must be protected even when dealing with complex and sensitive issues. 'We recognise the genuine challenges the police face in maintaining public safety, but we are concerned that some recent responses may not strike the right balance between security and fundamental rights. 'Our role as the national human rights institution is to uphold the laws that safeguard everyone's right to fairness, dignity and respect. When we see reports of people being questioned or prevented from peaceful protests that don't support proscribed organisations, we have a duty to speak out.' The Liberal Democrats called on Cooper to act swiftly. Lisa Smart, the party's home affairs spokesperson, said: 'The lack of clarity that has been given to police officers has led to confusion, increasing tensions and risks creating a chilling effect on freedom of speech. 'The home secretary needs to step in and give officers, often dealing with incredibly complex and sensitive situations, clear direction as to what is expected of them at protests. 'Without that officers will be left exposed and those exercising their democratic rights worried about the consequences.' The warning comes in the context of wider police operations targeting protesters who, unlike Murton, appear to directly express support for Palestine Action, which is illegal given the group's banned status. Membership of, or support for, the group is a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison under the Terrorism Act. The group was proscribed last month after incidents including one in which four people were arrested over damaged caused to two Voyager aircraft at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire. In the latest of a series of mass protests against the decision, more than 500 people were arrested in London last Saturday, almost all for displaying placards or signs allegedly supportive of Palestine Action. Half of those arrested were aged 60 or above, according to police figures. On Friday night the Metropolitan poice said a further 60 people would be prosecuted for 'showing support for the proscribed terrorist group Palestine Action'. Amnesty International UK said that while it welcomed the EHRC letter, the watchdog had 'failed to acknowledge the hundreds of people unfairly arrested for peacefully exercising their right to free expression'. Sacha Deshmukh, the organisation's chief executive, said: 'This isn't just about the chilling effect on freedom of speech for people 'not linked to any proscribed organisation', as the EHRC states, it's also about the excessive policing of citizens' right to protest against a decision made by their elected government. 'Under international human rights law, protest speech should only be criminalised if it incites violence, hatred or discrimination. Holding a placard and peacefully stating opposition to a government decision to proscribe an organisation cannot realistically be treated as an example of incitement.' Downing Street has justified the ban on Palestine Action by saying it is 'a violent organisation that has committed violence, significant injury, extensive criminal damage', a description one of its co-founders has said is false and defamatory. The Home Office said the issues the EHRC had raised were an operational matter for the police. The Met referred the query to the Home Office.
Rhyl Journal
3 hours ago
- Rhyl Journal
Verdict for Brazil's Bolsonaro set for early September
The court said the five-justice panel that heard the right-wing leader's case will deliver verdicts and sentences on the five counts against him from September 2 to 12. Bolsonaro, who has drawn the strong support of US President Donald Trump and who remains under house arrest, is accused of leading a conspiracy to stay in office after his narrow election defeat in 2022 to current President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. Bolsonaro denies wrongdoing. Prosecutors say Bolsonaro and several of his allies headed a criminal organisation that plotted to overturn the election, including plans to kill Mr Lula and Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who is overseeing the criminal case. Prosecutors have presented message exchanges, handwritten notes and other evidence allegedly detailing the plot. Defence lawyers have argued that no coup went forward and that Bolsonaro allowed the presidential transition to Mr Lula to take place, undermining any allegations that he tried to thwart that process. There are two five-justice panels at Brazil's top court, and Justice de Moraes brought the case to the one he sits on. Bolsonaro, who governed from 2019 to 2022, appointed two members of the court, but both sit on the other panel. There are five counts against Bolsonaro issued by the country's prosecutor-general: attempting to stage a coup, involvement in an armed criminal organisation, attempted violent abolition of the democratic rule of law and two counts involving destruction of state property. The prosecution finished presenting its case in July and the defence wrapped up its arguments this week. Bolsonaro's trial has gripped a sharply divided Brazilian public. It received even more attention after Mr Trump directly tied a 50% tariff on imported Brazilian goods to his ally's judicial situation. The US president has called the proceedings a 'witch hunt' against a political opponent, triggering nationalist reactions from many Brazilian politicians.
South Wales Guardian
4 hours ago
- South Wales Guardian
Verdict for Brazil's Bolsonaro set for early September
The court said the five-justice panel that heard the right-wing leader's case will deliver verdicts and sentences on the five counts against him from September 2 to 12. Bolsonaro, who has drawn the strong support of US President Donald Trump and who remains under house arrest, is accused of leading a conspiracy to stay in office after his narrow election defeat in 2022 to current President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. Bolsonaro denies wrongdoing. Prosecutors say Bolsonaro and several of his allies headed a criminal organisation that plotted to overturn the election, including plans to kill Mr Lula and Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who is overseeing the criminal case. Prosecutors have presented message exchanges, handwritten notes and other evidence allegedly detailing the plot. Defence lawyers have argued that no coup went forward and that Bolsonaro allowed the presidential transition to Mr Lula to take place, undermining any allegations that he tried to thwart that process. There are two five-justice panels at Brazil's top court, and Justice de Moraes brought the case to the one he sits on. Bolsonaro, who governed from 2019 to 2022, appointed two members of the court, but both sit on the other panel. There are five counts against Bolsonaro issued by the country's prosecutor-general: attempting to stage a coup, involvement in an armed criminal organisation, attempted violent abolition of the democratic rule of law and two counts involving destruction of state property. The prosecution finished presenting its case in July and the defence wrapped up its arguments this week. Bolsonaro's trial has gripped a sharply divided Brazilian public. It received even more attention after Mr Trump directly tied a 50% tariff on imported Brazilian goods to his ally's judicial situation. The US president has called the proceedings a 'witch hunt' against a political opponent, triggering nationalist reactions from many Brazilian politicians.
