The Court declared s 200(5) of LEPRA invalid as an impermissible burden on the implied freedom of political communication. Mitchelmore J held that 'in or near a place of worship' requires close physical proximity to the building or structure, but rejected the State's contention that s 200(5) read with s 197 confined the class of affected persons to those accessing or leaving the place of worship — once the exception was enlivened, s 197 operated according to its general terms against any persons in or near the public place. While the provision's purpose of protecting worshippers from intimidation was clearly legitimate, it failed the necessity limb of proportionality because the narrower construction the State itself advocated (limiting the power to conduct affecting persons accessing or leaving the place of worship, as s 214B of the Crimes Act already provided) presented an obvious and compelling less restrictive alternative. The Court noted but did not definitively resolve whether the post-Babet/Ravbar position requires calibrated scrutiny rather than structured proportionality as the determinative framework for the third Lange question.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.