Council meetings held online-only to avoid abuse are still ‘public’, court rules

A man associated with a fringe conspiracy group who took a Melbourne council to court in a bid to force them to hold meetings in front of a public gallery has been ordered to pay the council’s legal bill after the case was dismissed.

Darren Dickson, who represented himself, took Yarra Ranges Council to the Supreme Court over the council’s decision to close its increasingly rowdy public gallery for three months and take meetings online instead and what he claimed was a lack of consultation over a planning design document.

A Yarra Ranges council meeting in Lilydale in February.Credit: Eddie Jim

Supreme Court Justice Melinda Richards on Friday handed down her judgment after a one-day trial last month, dismissing Dickson’s claims.

Yarra Ranges Council – which covers townships in the Yarra Valley and Dandenong Ranges in Melbourne’s outer east – shut its public gallery between April and July this year. The decision followed what it described as months of intimidating and abusive behaviour by people who came to watch meetings, including adherents of fringe conspiracy group My Place Australia.

The council is among dozens that have moved to increase security at meetings this year after disruptions by people with concerns about vaccinations, 5G towers and 15 or 20-minute city “agendas” that they believe are ploys to track citizens.

In a multifaceted legal action launched in the Supreme Court in July, Dickson sought to delay a vote on the council’s Monbulk urban design framework (UDF) – a planning document used to guide infrastructure and development – by 12 months, claiming the council failed to “meaningfully engage” residents on the document.

Dickson, who is not a resident of Yarra Ranges but brought the case on “behalf of the people of Yarra Ranges”, also challenged the council’s right to close the public gallery.

But Richards found the council had adequately consulted the community over the document and that Dickson had no legal basis to claim residents were barred from meetings while the public gallery was closed.

“A council meeting is ‘open to the public’, as that term is defined in … the Local Government Act, if the meeting is broadcast live on the internet site of the council,” the judgment stated.

“In other words, a meeting may be ‘open to the public’ even though members of the public are unable to attend in person.”

Yarra Ranges Mayor Jim Child had to halt a council meeting and call police in January after the public gallery became unruly.Credit: Eddie Jim

Since the COVID-19 pandemic, many councils hold hybrid meetings – in-person with a public gallery and live-streamed to viewers. Some allow questions and submissions via video link.

After three months of online-only meetings, Yarra Ranges re-opened its public gallery on July 11 – but with requirements including pre-registration, photo ID and a 70-person cap.

The move to registration requirements has been criticised as anti-democratic by some community members in Yarra Ranges and other areas including Hobsons Bay in Melbourne’s inner west.

But in her judgment, Richards found the registration requirement was “proportionate” in the case of Yarra Ranges given “the disruption to council meetings that occurred earlier this year”.

During the trial, council staff members who were cross-examined by Dickson recounted being encircled and intimidated by people shouting conspiracy theories at meetings.

Dickson runs a website called Constitution Watch. He is a frequent speaker about common law at My Place events and appears in the group’s promotional materials.

A change.org petition organised by My Place railing against the council’s purported “20 minute city agenda” was submitted as evidence by Dickson.

Dickson claimed the Monbulk UDF was based on 20-minute city principles and that the council was trying to implement “United Nation policies” — a reference to a conspiracy that a global cabal is attempting to control and monitor populations.

The principle of 15 or 20-minute cities is embedded in planning blueprints across the world. The concept is that residents should be able to access key services such as schools, work and shops without relying on a car.

Dickson’s case also focused on the possibility of three-storey developments along the main street of Monbulk.

But Richards said: “The evidence does not establish that the Council is contemplating developing three-storey accommodation for local areas, or that approving the UDF would amount to the adoption of United Nations policies.”

”The UDF under consideration by the council involves neither of these things.“

The Yarra Ranges Planning Scheme already allows for three-storey developments in the Monbulk town centre, she said, adding that the design framework “simply seeks to clarify when a permit should be granted for such a development, and to require the upper levels of any new three-storey buildings to be set back so that they are more in keeping with Monbulk’s existing town character”.

”The UDF does not refer to or apply the 20-minute neighbourhood principle. Even if it did, the principle is established Victorian government policy that is already reflected in the Yarra Ranges Planning Scheme.“

In dismissing the case, Richards said Dickson had until September 1 to argue why he shouldn’t pay all the council’s costs for the matter.

Dickson and Yarra Ranges Council have been contacted for comment.

The ruling comes after Hobsons Bay council last week became the third council to take meetings solely online last week citing security concerns after a planned peaceful protest outside the chamber over evictions from an industrial estate.

Some Victorian councillors have suggested councils may be exaggerating security concerns to avoid scrutiny by residents with legitimate concerns, while council CEOs say they are legally bound to protect staff.

Get the day’s breaking news, entertainment ideas and a long read to enjoy. Sign up to receive our Evening Edition newsletter here.