25 September, 2025
magistrate-disrupts-court-as-takeaway-owners-attempt-political-speeches

A magistrate has reprimanded two takeaway shop owners for attempting to deliver political speeches during their court appearance in Cessnock, Australia. The incident unfolded on September 24, 2023, when Kim Chau and Robin To faced charges related to an alleged refusal of entry to a council inspector during a routine safety inspection at Aberdare Takeaway on June 26, 2023.

The charges against Chau and To include resisting or obstructing an authorized officer and hindering a police officer in the execution of duty. According to police statements, officers were reportedly assaulted while trying to conduct the inspection, which the owners allegedly obstructed.

During the hearing, Magistrate Robyn Richardson asked Chau if she wished to seek an adjournment for legal advice or enter a plea. Chau attempted to deliver a pre-prepared speech but was interrupted by the magistrate, who warned that if Chau continued speaking over her, she would leave the bench. Chau persisted, prompting Magistrate Richardson to step away from the courtroom momentarily as supporters of the defendants expressed their discontent from the gallery.

When the court reconvened, Richardson again inquired whether Chau was ready to proceed with her plea. Instead of responding, Chau attempted to read from her speech once more. The magistrate firmly stated, “I’m not going to have you give political speeches,” and reiterated that the court would not be “hijacked” by such remarks.

To also attempted to make a statement, but was similarly interrupted by Richardson, who refused to allow any further political commentary. The magistrate adjourned the case until February 2026 for hearings, instructing a sheriff to escort Chau and To from the courtroom to prevent any further disruptions.

This incident highlights the ongoing tensions between local businesses and government authorities regarding compliance with safety regulations. As the legal proceedings continue, the court’s handling of the situation raises questions about the balance between free speech and the decorum expected within judicial settings.