The authorised officer’s actions were not in fact authorised by the legislation

With a narrow construction of Part III likely to prevail, it appears the authorised officer’s actions were not in fact authorised by the legislation. Neither the river nor boardwalk protest staged by the Union group involved conduct which may be deemed reasonably likely to escalate to involve physical violence or intimidation in accordance with the construction advanced at [4]-[6]. That the river protest involved esoteric references to the internship scheme, while the boardwalk protest was seemingly parodic in nature indicates that a court will find that the conduct did not rise to the threshold required by a narrow interpretation which is compatible with the principle of legality.