Ratepayers cop it in the neck again

City of Launceston council's court loss to Caleb Corneloup over public preaching
Holly Monery Sept 1

"The City of Launceston has had its decision to deny a permit to preach in the city malls quashed by the Federal Court of Australia. ............. Christian preacher Caleb Corneloup challenged the validity of the council’s decision to deny him a permit in March 2015. ............. Judge Richard Tracey said the denial of the permit was not made by an authorised officer as required by the Malls By-Law. ............. In addition, he said the refusal to grant a permit under the council’s booking and usage guidelines was inconsistent with the Malls By-Law. ............. Mr Corneloup said he felt thankful and grateful for the court’s decision. ............. “I felt the case concerned constitutional issues about the freedom to communicate on political matters,” he said. ............. “Council’s decision effectively stopped me from publicly expressing serious views where a Christian perspective can affect political matters, like the true nature of marriage. ............. “If there is no appeal I hope that council will consider my application properly and promptly and grant me a permit to preach in the Brisbane Mall in accordance with the decision.” ............. City of Launceston general manager Robert Dobrzynski said the council was considering the judgement. ............. “The Council does not want in any way to restrict free speech, but it also has an obligation to provide a family friendly environment in its urban areas which people from all walks of life can enjoy, without feeling they are being harassed,” he said. ............. The council was ordered to pay Mr Corneloup’s costs and consider his application for a permit according to law."

So who lost ... actually?? Well it wasn't "the Council" but it was, yet again the ratepayers! Don't the ratepayers alway cop it and very often BIG TIME! Here it seems that someone without 'the authority' to do something, did it – and arguably by default.  

Robert Dobrzynski saying that the council was "considering the judgement" ... well there is no other way to say it ... It's unadulterated TOSH! Well maybe there was another way to put it but let's leave it at that. Robert Dobrzynski should just FESS UP and tell the ratepayers just what it actually cost them rounded out to the nearest hundred, or is it thousand, dollars.

It's just possible that there are more cases a bit like this out there that never get to court because the hapless ratepayer dose not want to take the risk of not having their costs paid for.

Ratepayers should write to their aldermen and ask them to do something more than "consider" this judgement since it has cost them.  But who has the time to be told to b****r off anyway?

Just why is it that the hapless ratepayer has to pay for someone's mistaken belief in their infallibility and the right to constrict someone's freedom enshrined in law? Okay that is a rhetorical question because actually we do know and that there'll be no penalty  ... most likely ????

Bring on council amalgamations!

Treva Alen