‘Argumentative’ Bob Brown found guilty of trespass after swift parrot forest protest

Veteran environmentalist Bob Brown and two fellow activists have been found guilty of trespassing during an anti-logging protest near Snow Hill. What a magistrate decided >

Bob Brown, right, arriving at the Hobart Magistrates Court on Monday.

Veteran environmentalist Bob Brown and two fellow activists have been found guilty of trespassing during an anti-logging protest near Snow Hill.

On Monday, Brown – along with Karen Weldrick and Kristy Alger – faced the Hobart Magistrates Court as Magistrate Jackie Hartnett handed down her decision.

It is expected the trio will be sentenced on August 14.

The charges date back to November 8, 2022, when the Bob Brown Foundation trio was at Royal George, in the North East highlands, protesting logging by Sustainable Timber Tasmania.

They claimed the land was used by the critically endangered swift parrot for foraging and nesting, and they were protesting to protect the bird’s habitat.

Brown, 79, said a swift parrot flew overhead at the time he was arrested for trespass.

Weldrick, 64, and Alger, 42, were arrested on the same charge after they chained themselves to a piece of logging machinery.

All three pleaded not guilty to their charge, arguing the logging was illegal due to noncompliance with a forest practices plan.

They argued the plan required immediate cessation of felling within 500m of a swift parrot sighting.

But in her published reasons for her decision, Ms Hartnett said there was insufficient evidence of this provided by the Bob Brown Foundation – and found there was no evidence that the harvesting was unlawful.

Karen Weldrick, left, and Bob Brown Foundation campaign manager Jenny Weber outside court.

Ms Hartnett was also not convinced by other arguments made on behalf of Brown, including that he had a reasonable and genuine belief he was located outside of the logging coupe when he was approached to leave by two police officers.

She said while she found Brown “argumentative and not willing to make reasonable concessions” during the hearing, she agreed his belief had been genuine.

However, she found his excuse to not be “objectively reasonable”.

Ms Hartnett also rejected the former Senator and Greens leader’s argument that his actions had a reasonable excuse, that his actions were “safe, peaceful, non-obstructive protest on an issue of public importance”.

“It was neither a safe nor unobstructive protest,” she said.

Lawyers acting for the trio noted there was evidence the swift parrot was indeed endangered, and the protesters were legitimately there to protest.

“This is an example of conscientious protest, albeit one that has fallen on the wrong side of criminal law,” defence lawyer Julian Murphy said on behalf of Alger.

He also said Weldrick was in treatment for a potentially life-threatening illness, and that any punishment would weigh heavily given her “difficult circumstances”.

Similar to Alger, Mr Murphy noted the protest action came about from a “deeply held belief of hers”.

He also argued Brown should not be convicted due to his genuine belief that was behaving lawfully.

“It’s not a case of deliberate defiance of the law for its own sake,” Mr Murphy said.

Follow @ambervwilson