This article assesses a hypothetical battery claim for noise exposure in Australia using Canada’s Freedom Convoy as a case study. I first advance a normative account for why battery ought to respond to noise- related interferences using Kit Barker’s taxonomy of ‘vindication events’. I argue that battery, relative to negligence and private nuisance: (1) more accurately ‘marks’ and ‘declares’ the plaintiff’s right to bodily integrity and ‘denounces’ the defendant’s intentional interference; and (2) improves access to ‘appropriate compensation’ post-infringement. I also explain how the ‘prevention of rights infringements’ fits within my normative account. I then answer the key doctrinal questions of whether and when noise exposure constitutes an actionable battery. I draw from existing common law precedents to show that physical contact by sound waves is ‘direct’ and capable of being ‘offensive’. I conclude by addressing the concern that my doctrinal conclusions would unduly burden protesters’ implied freedom of political communication.

Please access full article here or via PDF link to the left.

(2024) 47(3) UNSWLJ 975: https://doi.org/10.53637/KKZJ2919