Police v Abel; Police v Adams; Police v Kelly; Police v Molan; Police v Wurcker

The defendants, due to their concern about climate change, participated in a protest. The defendant considered and maintained it was important for individuals and the government to reduce the use of climate change. They hoped to disrupt the activities of Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (APPEA), which they understood as the gas and petroleum industry lobby group. "The protest involved blockading the two main entrances to the Premises. The Defendants are each charged with being a person, in a territory, who engaged in unreasonable obstruction while taking part in an assembly, in contravention of subsection 9(1) of the Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property Act 1971 (Cth) (the Act)." - excerpt from ruling. Defendants were not dealing with Climate Change through their obstruction. Their actions would not solve or improve the issue of Climate Change. The goal was to get the public's attention to the urgency of the issue and the government's policies with respect to climate change. Since no reasonable person would believe that the defendants actions were actually directed in addressing an emergency (here, climate change), the court ruled that the Defendants failed to meet their burden of proof.