Our client is a church group that had been set up in greater Melbourne. The church was established in a partly industrial area, where other businesses also operate. In order to establish the premises, the church applied for and was granted a permit to host regular services and events by the local council. Unfortunately, the permit limited the times when services and events could be held, including the number of people who may attend at any one time.
The church is important for the local community who gather to worship. It is a multicultural community and the church meets the religious and other needs of a particular group of people who have migrated to Australia from overseas. The church is also established in an area of Melbourne that is growing quickly, and a local community is presently constrained by a lack of necessary public transport and other services. This means that the church has taken on a greater importance for the people who attend for spiritual connection, fulfillment, and also community engagement and supports. The church has established youth groups and provides additional support for young families and many older people also attend the church.
What was alleged to have occurred?
Following COVID-19, the numbers attending the church grew as people were able to move around the community more freely. It was during this time when a local business with premises nearby complained to the council about the many people attending the church and preventing their businesses from operating as required.
Due to the number of complaints, the council decided to investigate the church for breaches of permit conditions. The council sent a letter to the church notifying them that they would be prosecuted. The church responded by requesting a meeting with the council to discuss ways the permit could be complied appropriately. The council refused.
The council investigator then operated a covert surveillance device to monitor for breaches and also monitored the church’s Facebook page for posts and photos that showed breaches to the permit conditions. Once the council had gathered enough material, the church was charged with about 20 offences contrary to the Planning and Environment Act 1987, for operating outside of permitted hours and for a number of people attending the church in excess of the number permitted by council.
What happened at court?
The case was heard at the Sunshine Magistrates’ Court with Sophie Parsons and Amelia Ramsay acting on the client’s behalf.
In order to understand the context for the prosecution and to prepare for the upcoming court appearance, our lawyers took great interest in learning about our client’s church, the history of how it was set up, the community who attend there, and the worthwhile projects the church engages in for the betterment of the local community.
Our lawyers requested character references from people who attend the church that set out more information about the good work the church does for the community. We also requested the church to prepare a chronology of the many attempts made to engage with the council to fix the issues leading to the breaches of permits, and to secure land elsewhere to establish a church where there was more space and less risk of interfering with the amenities of other local businesses.
In the lead-up to the court appearance, our lawyers negotiated with the lawyers representing the council. The charges were able to be ‘rolled up’ so that the church pleaded guilty to two ‘rolled up’ charges that represented several breach dates, rather than numerous separate charges.
Our lawyers also effectively challenged the council with respect to some of the charges pointing out the lack of evidence to sufficiently prove the offences in some instances. The council agreed to withdraw some of the charges.
Our lawyers further made important amendments to the summary of facts, to make it clear that although the church’s actions were interfering with the area’s amenities (car spaces available for other businesses), the church was not causing any safety concerns for the community.
Once the matter was resolved, the matter proceeded in court as a plea of guilty. Submissions were made about the efforts of the church to engage proactively and positively with the council, that the church and the people who attend were peaceful people doing good work for the community, and that efforts were being made to establish a new area for the church to avoid continuing issues.
What was the result?
The Magistrate accepted the submissions. In light of the attempts made by the church to engage with the council, and the council’s refusal to meet with the church representatives in person to resolve the issues, the Magistrate reduced the award of costs to the council.
Ultimately, the Magistrate sentenced the church to a without conviction good behaviour bond for a period of 12 months, with $250 to be paid into the court fund, and $500 costs to be paid by the church for the council’s legal costs. The present Director of the church signed the undertaking on behalf of the church as it is the church that was prosecuted rather than the individual.
This was a favourable outcome in the circumstances, particularly as the church had been prosecuted and pleaded guilty to permit breaches previously.
Sophie Parsons and Amelia Ramsay
Sophie is a Partner and In-House Counsel at Doogue + George. She is an experienced advocate who appears regularly in Victorian courts and tribunals and assists clients with advice and representation at every stage of proceedings.
Amelia is also a Partner at Doogue + George. She works with care and professionalism ensuring clients understand the Court process, their charges and that they receive the best possible outcome.
View their profiles here.
DISCLAIMER: This is a real case study of an actual case from our files. Details pertaining to the client have been changed to protect their privacy. The sentence imposed and the charge have not been altered. These case studies are published to demonstrate real outcomes and give an indication of possible tariffs in Court. We do not guarantee a similar case on these charges will get the same result. Please note that we post results at our discretion, therefore while many case studies are average results, others are notable for their exceptional outcomes. PUBLISHED 04/02/2025
