| Clubb v Edwards | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | High Court of Australia |
| Full case name | Clubb v Edwards; Preston v Avery |
| Decided | 10 April 2019 |
| Citation | [2019] HCA 11 |
| Transcripts | [2018] HCATrans 210 [2018] HCATrans 208 [2018] HCATrans 206 |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon & Edelman JJ |
| Case opinions | |
| appeal dismissed Neither Act found to be in breach of the constitutional freedom of political communication (per Kiefel CJ, Bell, Keane) concurring (Nettle J) (Gageler J) (Gordon J) (Edelman J) | |
Clubb v Edwards; Preston v Avery is a decision of the High Court of Australia.[1] It was a combined hearing of two appeals, raised from the Magistrates Court of Victoria and Tasmania respectively. The appellants, Kathleen Clubb and John Preston; had sought to challenge two laws restricting their conduct near abortion providers, on the ground that the relevant laws were unconstitutional for breach of Australia's freedom of political communication doctrine.[2]
Both appeals were unanimously dismissed by the court.[3]
- ^ Clubb v Edwards [2019] HCA 11. Judgment summary (PDF), High Court, 10 April 2019.
- ^ "Clubb v Edwards; Preston v Avery | Opinions on High". 18 April 2019. Retrieved 29 July 2020.
- ^ Preiss, Benjamin (10 April 2019). "Anti-abortion activists fail in legal challenge to scrap buffer zones". The Age. Retrieved 29 July 2020.