A Victorian council’s decision to hold meetings online did not prevent residents from participating in the democratic process, a supreme court judge has found.
In April, Yarra Ranges council announced it would close its public gallery for council meetings, citing verbal abuse and intimidation from some of those attending, including members of the conspiracist group My Place.
It reopened its meetings to the public in July with new registration requirements.
A critic of the Yarra Ranges council launched a court bid to delay a vote on the urban design framework for the small town of Monbulk, claiming the council had failed to meaningfully engage residents.
Darren Dickson, who represented himself at a judge-alone trial earlier this month, also claimed the council’s decision to close the public gallery “alienated the people of the community from participating in the democratic process”.
But supreme court justice Melinda Richards on Friday dismissed the case, finding there was “no evidence” anyone was disadvantaged or prevented from participating in council meetings when they were moved online.
Dickson had sought to force the council to reopen council meetings to the public and allow people to film meetings. This was rejected by Richards in her written judgment.
“At its highest, Mr Dickson’s interest is a strongly held belief that the council should conduct its meetings in a particular way. On its own, that is not enough to establish standing to obtain orders compelling the council to conduct meetings in that way,” she wrote.
Richards found the council met community engagement obligations on the planning document.
She said while the public gallery was closed for several months, the council streamed its meetings online and allowed people to register to ask questions.
“Members of the public were able to observe and participate in council meetings online. There is no evidence that anyone was disadvantaged or prevented from participating because the meetings were conducted virtually rather than in person,” Richards wrote.
She also accepted the account of the council’s manager of design and place, Nathan Islip, who told the court earlier this month that he was subjected to verbal abuse at a meeting in January.
“The behaviour of this group was threatening and offensive. I accept that Mr Islip felt unsafe, and that he had good reason to do so,” she wrote.
Islip told the court among those who disrupted the meeting were people who held “conspiracy theories” about 20-minute neighbourhoods – an urban planning concept that aims to provide key services within walking distance for residents.
Conspiracy theories have argued it is a Trojan horse to put residents in a type of permanent lockdown.
But Richards said the Monbulk design framework “does not use the term ‘20-minute neighbourhood’ or refer to the 20-minute neighbourhood principle”.
Richards said it was “regrettable” that council meetings were “disrupted by a group of people whose behaviour was at times threatening and offensive to the councillors, council staff, and other members of the public who were present”.
She said the new registration requirements for meetings did not impede on a person’s right to privacy, describing it as “proportionate to the legitimate aim of ensuring that council meetings take place in a safe environment for all participants”.
The council is set to vote on the urban desk framework next month.
