## Facts

- Victoria made regulations barring entry into specified permitted hunting areas during limited time windows on the opening weekend of the 1994 duck-hunting season, except for holders of valid game licences.
- Laurence Nathan Levy, an animal-welfare activist opposed to duck shooting and not a licensed hunter, entered a permitted hunting area (Lake Buloke) during the restricted periods.
- Levy alleged he entered to protest Victorian laws permitting duck hunting, to rescue wounded birds, and to attract media attention to alleged cruelty and illegal shooting.
- Police/officials intercepted, interviewed, and removed Levy; he was charged with offences for entering a permitted hunting area during prohibited times without authority.
- Levy commenced constitutional proceedings seeking a declaration that the regulations were invalid for infringing the implied freedom of political communication.
- The State and other defendants demurred, arguing the claim failed even if the pleaded facts were accepted.

## Issues

1. Whether the implied freedom of political communication covers protest conduct (including physical presence and symbolic activity) in a hunting area.
2. Whether the entry restrictions burdened communication on government or political matters.
3. If the restrictions burdened political communication, whether they were nevertheless valid as reasonably appropriate and adapted to a legitimate purpose compatible with representative and responsible government (public safety).

## Decision

- The High Court allowed the defendants’ demurrer and upheld the regulations.
- The Court accepted that political communication can include conduct, including protest activity.
- The Court accepted the regulations burdened political communication in their operation by preventing protest activity at times and places where it would be most effective and likely to attract media coverage.
- The Court held the regulations served a legitimate public safety purpose compatible with the constitutional system and were sufficiently confined in scope and duration to be upheld.
- The Court reaffirmed that the implied freedom is not a personal right to speak or protest but a restriction on legislative power to enact laws that impermissibly burden political communication.

## Legal Principles

- The implied freedom of political communication can extend beyond words to expressive conduct undertaken to convey political views.
- A law may burden political communication by restricting access to locations or times where protest and related publicity would predictably occur.
- A law that burdens political communication remains valid if it is directed to a legitimate purpose compatible with representative and responsible government and is reasonably appropriate and adapted (proportionate) to that purpose.
- The implied freedom operates as a constitutional limit on legislative power, not as an individual, free-standing right to communicate or to protest in a chosen manner or place.
- In assessing validity, the law’s purpose and the degree and targeting of the burden (including duration, geography, and context such as safety risks) are central.

## Conclusion

The Court held that although the regulations impeded political protest associated with opposition to duck hunting and thus burdened political communication, they were a valid safety measure and did not exceed constitutional limits on State legislative power.


Levy v. Victoria, 189 C.L.R. 579 (Austl. 1997)