Linda Seaborn, Hobart
On August 26, Victoria's Supreme Court rejected Tasmanian timber company Gunns Ltd's third statement of claim, in which it detailed its case against 20 people and called for $6.9 million in compensation.
In December 2004, Gunns lodged its first writ against 20 people protesting woodchipping in Tasmania. The company alleged that the protesters had sabotaged machinery, wrecked property, trespassed and blocked access to land at various logging sites and mills. The 20 defendants include Greens Senator Bob Brown and Tasmanian Greens parliamentary leader Peg Putt, as well as the Wilderness Society (TWS).
In July 2005, Gunns' first and second statements of claim were dismissed by Victoria's Supreme Court. The presiding judge stated: "It would be a singularly unprofitable exercise to attempt to describe every defect in it which needs correction." Gunns was ordered to pay the costs of the defendants.
When the 221-page third statement of claim was thrown out on August 26, Justice Bernard Bongiorno said it included "weasel words", it was "too general" and that "too much is sought to be alleged against too many". He also ruled that its size and complexity placed an unreasonable burden and enormous cost on individual defendants. Gunns was given until October 19 to lodge a claim based on a honed-down number of allegations.
Gunns chief executive John Gay told Australian Associated Press that the company would continue its legal battle against the protesters, lodging another statement of claim or even several more. Brown told journalists the court ruling was "a huge victory for those of us fighting against Gunns' destruction of Tasmania's ancient forests and wildlife".
TWS national forest campaign coordinator Virginia Young was more cautious. "This is a massive case as far as the Wilderness Society is concerned and to be nearly two years on and be in exactly the same position as when the writ was first issued ... is really quite distressing", she told journalists. Louise Morris, another of the Gunns 20, said: "In 10 years' time this will all be a lovely chapter in the story of how we managed to get free speech legislation enshrined in the constitution."
Lawyers from Britain and Australia have expressed concern about the impact of the case on the freedom to protest and freedom of speech. On April 10, 140 Australian lawyers signed an open letter calling on the federal and state governments "to protect the community's right and ability to participate in public debate and political activity without fear of litigation".
Julian Burnside QC, one of the Gunns 20 defence counsels, told the June 28 British Guardian: "It leaves you wondering if the purpose [of Gunns' lawsuit] is simply to terrorise" protesters. "If Gunns were seriously attempting to vindicate their rights they would have brought 10 different actions at the time in a magistrates court in Hobart [rather than in the Victorian Supreme Court]. Each defendant would then be faced with manageable litigation that they could defend as they saw fit."
Greg Ogle, legal coordinator for the Wilderness Society, told the Guardian: "If we can get a manageable trial, it will also be putting the logging industry in Tasmania on trial. We will be talking about what we object to in the forestry operation and how the law didn't protect endangered species and the forest."
Geoff Law, one of the Gunns 20 and a long-time forest campaigner and member of TWS, said: "We don't want to give Gunns the satisfaction of believing they have shut down the campaign, and we can't abandon the forests. We want to set an example to the rest of the community not to let corporations get away with actions that could silence debate."