File(s) not publicly available
Magee v Wallace
chapterposted on 20.04.2018, 00:00 by Susan BirdSusan Bird
Magee v Wallace  VSC 643 may appear, prima facie, as an insignificant case with little relevance for wild law. It is an appeal from a Magistrates Court decision, Wallace v Magee, about minor criminal damage under s 10 of the Summary Offences Act 1966 (Vic). Kyle Magee pleaded guilty to charges of causing damage to an advertising hoarding. Magee pasted over, with flour and water, an advertisement by a multinational corporation with bill posters containing his philosophy. While Magee’s act could be viewed as a simple case of criminal damage, it becomes more complicated when explored in context. Magee is an activist who is acutely aware of the impact many corporations on the environment. Magee’s painting and posting over corporate advertising is a form of direct action aimed at raising awareness, and spark a conversation about how we can save the planet. This can be achieved, Kyle believes, through a free and independent media, where ordinary citizens have a right to be heard. His court actions rely on the Victorian Charter of Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.