DistantNews
Support us
🇦🇺 Australia /Environment & Climate

Woodside demands activists reveal names of stink-bomb stunt planners

From ABC Australia · () English

Summarized and contextualized by DistantNews.

At a glance

News Named sources In the courts
  • Energy giant Woodside is suing three climate activists to reveal the identities of those who planned a stink-bomb protest at its Perth headquarters.
  • The protest in 2023 forced an evacuation and caused damage and loss of productivity, for which Woodside seeks financial compensation.
  • Woodside believes more individuals were involved in planning the protest, citing a previous incident at a former CEO's home as an example of planning and rehearsal by others.

Energy company Woodside is pursuing legal action against three climate activists, seeking to compel them to disclose documents related to the planning of a stink-bomb protest. The protest, carried out by individuals aligned with the Disrupt Burrup Hub campaign, occurred in 2023 at Woodside's Perth headquarters. The incident involved the detonation of a stink bomb in the building's lobby, leading to the evacuation of the entire 29-story structure for several hours.

We intend to commence proceedings against all the parties we can identify

— Steven PenglisWoodside's senior counsel Steven Penglis informed the court of the company's intention to sue all identified individuals involved in the protest's planning.

Woodside intends to claim financial damages from those involved, citing the damage caused and the resulting loss of productivity. The Supreme Court civil suit names Kristen Morrissey, who released the gas, along with Joana Partyka and Emil Davey, identified as participants in the planning and preparation stages. All three activists have previously been sentenced for their roles in the incident.

During a court hearing, Woodside's senior counsel, Steven Penglis, stated the company's belief that more than three individuals were involved in orchestrating the protest. He indicated that proceedings would be initiated against all identified parties. Justice Matthew Howard questioned the basis for this belief, noting that a comprehensive police operation had already concluded. Mr. Penglis cited the protest group's "modus operandi" and mentioned a fourth individual identified during criminal proceedings but not charged, as evidence of broader involvement.

This is a modus operandi of protest groups around the world

— Justice Matthew HowardJustice Matthew Howard commented on the nature of protest groups when questioned by Woodside's counsel about the belief of wider involvement.

The defense lawyer for Morrissey, Dane Chandler, argued that his client had already cooperated by volunteering access to her devices during the police investigation, and that her residence had been searched. He contended that there was no need for further examination as she possessed no additional documents. The court also heard that Woodside had sent similar letters to five activists, which the defense suggested indicated the company already possessed the names of those involved.

I submit there is no reason to examine her, on the basis that she has no documents

— Dane ChandlerDefense lawyer Dane Chandler argued against further examination of his client, Kristen Morrissey, stating she had already provided access to devices and documents.
DistantNews Editorial

Originally published by ABC Australia. Summarized and contextualized by our editorial team with added local perspective. Read our editorial standards.

More Stories

From Our Blog