‘Where is the line?’: Magistrate mulls ethics of climate protest outside home of Woodside boss​on February 4, 2025 at 8:19 am

But it was not extreme enough to warrant the police response, according to Davey’s lawyer Anthony Elliott, who branded it an “extraordinary overreaction” to a nonviolent protest which followed his client having a gun pointed at him.

Elliott told the court Davey had been canvassing O’Neill’s residence in a Toyota Hilux 24 hours before the planned protest when an unmarked police car pulled in front of him, claiming an officer dressed in plain clothing exited the car and pointed a gun at his client’s face.

“My client was worried he was about to be robbed or assaulted, or both. And didn’t get out of his car. He was extremely fearful,” Elliott said.

Lane-Rose’s lawyer Zarah Burgess told the court it appeared police had been tracking the group for at least a week before the incident.

Burgess dismissed concerns about the risk to O’Neill and her 18-year-old daughter, who was at home at the time, maintaining authorities would have evacuated the residence if they believed the group posed a genuine threat.

Lawyers for all four defendants maintained the offending was “at the lower end” and worthy only of a small fine, pointing out that “not a single drop of paint was spilled” in the course of the protest and that their conduct was motivated by genuinely held concerns about climate change.

Both Davey and Lane-Rose sought spent convictions, with their lawyers saying the pair were of prior good character and had no criminal record.

But lawyers for the defendants appeared divided when grilled by Magistrate Steven Heath about whether the group’s decision to take its Disrupt Burrup Hub campaign from Woodside’s corporate headquarters to the personal residence of its boss crossed an ethical line.

While accepting the group’s views concerns may be genuine and in the public interest, Heath said holding an employee responsible for a corporation’s decision was an entirely different matter.

“I think it’s about the boundaries behind the protest. There’s a legitimacy to bringing matters to the public’s attention, but where is the line?” Heath asked the defence.

“Are physical attacks on people the next step? At what point do we stop?

Loading

“It’s a genuine well-held concern, with scientific backing, but there’s this constant balance between development and conservation, and it’s about where we draw the line.”

Elliott said he believed the line would be crossed if the protest became violent, while Burgess argued the debate was not one the court had to engage in to sentence the group.

But state prosecutors said there was a very strong need for both personal and general deterrence in any sentence handed down, stating the protest was planned, carefully coordinated and aimed at gaining publicity and that the group had shown no remorse for their actions.

Heath reserved his decision.

Lane-Rose, Davey and Noakes are expected to be sentenced next week, while Mazza is due to be sentenced on February 24.

The group exited flanked by supporters, declaring they did not hold remorse for their actions while addressing the media and maintaining they did not cross a line.

Disrupt Burrup Hub has held several protests since 2013, targeting Woodside over its development of the Scarborough gas field to be processed at its Pluto plant on the Burrup Peninsula.

The hearing comes after the WA government green-lit Woodside’s plan to run its North West Shelf plant until 2070, a project tipped to generate 4.3 billion tonnes of emissions over its lifespan — more than 10 times the nation’s annual total — which the company will be required to curb over time.

Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.