Judge questions case against anti-lockdown activist Monica Smit

A judge has raised questions around charges against Reignite Democracy Australia founder Monica Smit, who plans to sue cops for time she spent in prison.

A judge has raised substantial questions in a case against anti-lockdown activist Monica Smit, who confirmed on Friday that she intends to sue Victoria Police for the 22 days she spent in prison over charges that were ultimately dropped.

Ms Smit, 34, represented herself in the Melbourne Magistrates Court on Friday, where she was charged with two counts of failing to comply with health regulations during Melbourne’s 2021 Covid lockdowns, after earlier charges of incitement were dropped by prosecutors in July.

The first charge relates to an anti-lockdown rally in Melbourne’s CBD on August 21 last year, which Ms Smit admits she attended, and for attending the Brighton home of Professor Ian Brighthope on August 31.

Reignite Democracy Australia founder Monica Smit is fighting two charges of breaching public health orders during Melbourne’s lock down last year.

In both cases Ms Smit, who is the founder of Reignite Democracy Australia, said she was working in a legitimate capacity as a journalist.

Prosecutor Anthony Albore told the court that prior to the August rally Ms Smit had been authoring posts on Reignite Democracy’s Telegram platform urging people to attend and not to wear face masks, and had asked viewers “what could possibly be more important?”

Mr Albore said Ms Smit attended Professor Brighthope’s Brighton residence on August 26, when at the time her address was the south eastern suburb of Pakenham, more than 50km away, where she conducted an interview later posted on Reignite Democracy.

He said it “couldn’t be said this person was a part of (Ms Smit’s) bubble buddy.”

Monica Smit, 34, argued in the Melbourne Magistrates Court on Friday that in each case of her alleged breaches of public health orders she was working as a journalist. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Wayne Taylor

His Honour Timothy Bourke said “you don’t have to be in a relationship” with a bubble buddy, and said Ms Smit and Professor Brighthope may have been “of like mind.”

“I don’t like (the police) their case on charge seven” His Honour Bourke said, referring to charge relating to Ms Smit’s attendance at Professor Brighthope’s home.

Ms Smit said “journalism was a reason,” and said that was “why I was at the protest.”

His Honour Bourke said, “it’s an interesting point.”

“This is a pretty serious issue,” he said.

The matter will proceed to a contest mention on May 15.

Monica Smit was charged with visiting the Brighton home of Professor Ian Brighthope during the pandemic lockdown in August last year.

Outside court, Ms Smit confirmed to NCA Newswire that she intended to sue Victoria Police over her imprisonment, which resulted from her refusal to comply with certain bail restrictions.

Ms Smit said she refused to sign the bail conditions because they required her to remove material from her platforms inciting opposition to the Chief Health Officer’s guidelines, and not to distribute any material inciting opposition to the guidelines.

In September last year Ms Smit was granted bail by the Supreme Court of Victoria, which found she would not need to remove material from her website or social media, nor comply with curfew requirements sought by police.

Ms Smit said outside court “they forced me into prison because of those conditions.”

“I think I’ve got a case.”

Originally published as Judge questions case against anti-lockdown activist Monica Smit