Adani protesters fined after being found at coal terminal
TWO Adani protesters found hiding inside the Adani Abbot Point Coal Terminal grounds in February have returned to their NSW homes lighter in the pocket.
Lachlan James Harvey, 24, of Tighes Hill in NSW, and Sage Elizabeth Scott, 24, of Paddington in NSW both faced Bowen Magistrates Court separately on April 2 charged with trespass and intentionally or recklessly interfering with a port's operation.
Prosecutor Sergeant Emma Myors told the court police were called to the coal terminal on February 26 at 7am in relation to trespassers at the facility.
Their attention was drawn to Scott initially, spotted in scrubland adjacent to the loading facility, Sgt Myors said.
A search of the area also led to the discovery of Harvey.
Sgt Myors told said Abbot Point staff told police the facility had to be shut down because of the trespassers, resulting in the disruption of port operations.
In Harvey's case, Sgt Myors also spoke about how a "lock-on device" which is sometimes used by Adani protesters to attach themselves to places was found "near the area where he was arrested".
Harvey also had an adapted dog clip which could be used as a lock-on device.
Duty lawyer Cleo Rewald represented the pair in court.
She said Harvey was a university student at the Conservatorium of Music, while Scott was a youth worker.
She said the interruption of the port's operations was only because of their mere presence at the site, and not anything more sinister.
Mrs Rewald also argued that the lock-on device was not in Harvey's possession.
She said Harvey was "concerned about the environment".
"He accepts he broke the law to voice his concern, and he's sorry for that," she said.
Magistrate Ron Muirhead fined Harvey one fine of $1800 on all charges, but a conviction was not recorded by the court.
"I've got to have regard for how prevalent the offences are in the area," Mr Muirhead said.
He fined Scott $1600, and also ordered a conviction not be recorded by the court.
Mr Muirhead said Scott's fine was lower because the location of the lock-on device was not part of the facts in her case.
WANT TO SEE MORE LIKE THIS?