In the case of Barangaroon Casino v Vee (1997) it was held that an authorised officer had unlawfully seized property from a protester. This ruling serves as a reminder to those who seek to exercise power over others, that due process and legal requirements must be followed in order for such actions to remain lawful.

The decision made by the court rested on two main points: firstly, that under section 7(1)(a) of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW), an authorised officer may seize property if they believe it is ‘reasonably likely to, or intended to, impede essential commercial interests’ and secondly, this definition has been confined by the Act itself so as preserve only “the effective operation of buildings”- which includes protecting employees from overt aggression or demeaning conduct (Barangaroon, 1997).

Given these considerations – along with how “overtly aggressive” should be interpreted according its plain meaning i.e. ready/likely attack/confront or behaving forcefully; alongside “demeaning” being defined as causing someone lose their dignity & respect – then one can ascertain why McHugh J ultimately ruled against respondent – thus emphasising again why fair treatment before tribunals should always take precedence over any other considerations.

It should also be noted here that this consideration becomes all more pertinent when assessing other cases involving seizures prescribed by statute yet lacking express provision otherwise – as any deviation from pre-established protocol could lead authorities into infringing upon individuals fundamental common law rights without realising so; such as what occurred in Eather v Minister for Police (1975). Therefore, it is paramount that officers not only understand relevant Acts but also adhere strictly thereto lest risk unknowingly undermining justice through unlawful action.