Monica Smit became one of the most widely recognised figures of Australia’s COVID-19 lockdown era after repeated arrests at anti-lockdown protests, time spent in custody, and a prolonged legal battle against the Victorian Government. Her case ultimately confirmed unlawful police conduct while also delivering one of the most controversial outcomes of the pandemic period: a ruling that left her liable for more than $200,000 in legal costs despite partially winning her case.
The events surrounding Monica Smit are frequently referenced in debates about protest rights, emergency powers, police accountability, and access to justice. This article brings together all verified and publicly available information to present a complete account of her activism, arrests, court proceedings, and the broader legal significance of her case.
Entry Into Public Life During the Pandemic
Monica Smit was not a public figure prior to 2020. Her public profile emerged during Victoria’s COVID-19 lockdowns, a period defined by unprecedented public health restrictions and heightened police enforcement.
In August 2020, she founded Reignite Democracy Australia, an organisation formed in opposition to lockdowns, mask mandates, travel limits, and restrictions on public gatherings. The group quickly gained attention as protests against the Victorian Government’s pandemic response intensified.
From that point onward, Smit became a visible organiser and spokesperson for protest activity. Australian media outlets often described her as an anti-lockdown or freedom activist, labels reflecting media framing rather than legal classification.
Victoria’s Lockdown Laws and Police Powers
During 2020, Victoria operated under emergency public health directions issued by the Chief Health Officer. These directions imposed strict limits on movement, capped the size of public gatherings, and required face masks to be worn outdoors.
Victoria Police consistently stated that protesting itself was not unlawful, but that protest activity still had to comply with public health directions. Police enforcement relied on public health legislation and section 458 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), which governs arrest without warrant.
Under Australian common law, arrest is regarded as a serious interference with personal liberty. As a result, arrest powers must be interpreted narrowly and justified in each individual case.
The “Stop the Sale of Victoria” Protest
On 31 October 2020, an anti-lockdown protest known as “Stop the Sale of Victoria” took place at Treasury Gardens in Melbourne. The protest opposed the Victorian Government’s pandemic response and broader policy direction.
Monica Smit attended the protest. During later court proceedings, she stated that she was present in the capacity of an independent journalist associated with Reignite Democracy Australia. The court accepted this as contextual background but did not treat it as conferring any special legal status.
Three Arrests in One Morning
Over the course of approximately three hours on 31 October 2020, Smit was arrested and released three separate times.
The first arrest occurred at around 10.45 am. Police alleged that Smit was not wearing a face mask and had refused a direction to move on. She was detained on the street for approximately 20 minutes before being released.
The second arrest occurred around 11.10 am. On this occasion, she was handcuffed and placed inside a police wagon for roughly 30 minutes. Police alleged further breaches of public health directions, including being outside the permitted distance from her home.
The third arrest occurred later in the morning when police established a cordon and detained dozens of people at the protest site. Evidence later showed that Smit was standing alone at that stage and was not actively participating in a group gathering.
Beginning of the Civil Lawsuit
In July 2023, Monica Smit commenced civil proceedings against the State of Victoria, alleging false imprisonment in relation to the three arrests on 31 October 2020.
She represented herself throughout the proceedings. False imprisonment is a strict liability tort, meaning once detention is established, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove the arrest was lawful.
The County Court Judgment
On 12 September 2024, the County Court of Victoria delivered its written judgment in Smit v State of Victoria [2024] VCC 1411, with Judge My Anh Tran presiding.
The court assessed each arrest individually against section 458 of the Crimes Act and common-law protections of personal liberty.
The Legal Test for Arrest Under Section 458
Section 458 permits arrest without a warrant only where police reasonably believe arrest is necessary for specific purposes, including ensuring a person appears before a court, preventing continuation or repetition of an offence, preserving public order, or preventing interference with evidence.
The court stressed that suspicion of an offence alone is insufficient. Police must justify why arrest is necessary rather than issuing a fine, warning, or direction.
Findings on the First Arrest
The court found the first arrest unlawful. While the officer reasonably believed Smit was committing an offence, the officer failed to properly explain why arrest was necessary. The court concluded that less intrusive options were available.
Findings on the Second Arrest
The second arrest was found to be lawful. Despite involving handcuffing and detention in a police wagon, the court accepted that police met the legal threshold for arrest at that point, given the surrounding circumstances and alleged ongoing non-compliance.
Findings on the Third Arrest
The court ruled the third arrest unlawful. By that stage, Smit was standing alone and was no longer committing an offence related to unlawful gathering. Police failed to establish that the arrest was authorised or necessary.
Police Arguments and Judicial Reasoning
Victoria Police argued that repeated breaches, protest volatility, and public order concerns justified arrest across all three incidents. Judge Tran rejected this reasoning in relation to the first and third arrests, finding that police had not demonstrated necessity as required by law.
The judgment reinforced that arrest powers must be strictly construed, even during public health emergencies.
Liberty, Human Rights and the Court’s Reasoning
Judge Tran emphasised that personal liberty enjoys special and enduring protection under common law. The judgment stated that human rights apply to all members of society, including individuals whose views may be unpopular or considered unreasonable by the majority.
While the court relied primarily on common law, the broader framework of the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities informed the understanding of liberty and state power.
Damages Awarded by the Court
The court awarded Smit $4,000 in damages. She received $3,000 for the first unlawful arrest and $1,000 for the third.
The judge noted that the second arrest, had it been unlawful, would likely have attracted a higher award due to the length and nature of the detention.
Credibility Findings
Judge Tran was critical of aspects of Smit’s evidence. The court described elements of her claims of distress as exaggerated and noted a tendency to frame events in a way that supported her public narrative as a freedom activist.
These credibility findings influenced the modest damages awarded.
The Costs Ruling and Its Impact
Before trial, the State of Victoria offered to settle the case for $15,000. Smit rejected the offer and proceeded to trial.
Because the final damages award was significantly lower than the settlement offer, the court applied standard civil procedure principles and ordered Smit to pay the state’s legal costs from a specified point. The resulting costs order exceeded $200,000 and was reported publicly on 13 September 2024.
The court applied standard costs rather than indemnity costs, consistent with ordinary civil litigation practice.
Why Winning Did Not Prevent Financial Loss
Australian civil procedure strongly encourages settlement. A party who rejects a reasonable offer and later achieves a worse outcome can be ordered to pay the other side’s costs, even if they succeed on some claims.
The court prioritised procedural efficiency and settlement incentives over moral or political considerations.
Role of Self-Representation
Smit represented herself throughout the proceedings. Australian reporting noted that self-representation increased procedural difficulty, affected the presentation of evidence, and exposed her to greater costs risk.
The court did not treat self-representation as a mitigating factor in the costs decision.
Public Reaction and Media Coverage
The outcome sparked widespread debate. Smit publicly questioned how it could be fair to win a case yet face financial ruin. Supporters argued the ruling discourages ordinary Australians from challenging state power. Others pointed out that the costs rules are long-standing and apply to all litigants regardless of political cause.
Media coverage often used emotive language, while judicial language remained neutral and restrained.
The 2021 Arrest and Time in Custody
In August 2021, Smit was arrested again after promoting another anti-lockdown protest. She was charged with incitement and refused to accept bail conditions restricting protest activity.
As a result, she spent 22 days in custody, much of that time in isolation in a high-security prison. The incitement charges were later dropped, and she was subsequently found guilty without conviction of breaching public health orders.
This period of imprisonment significantly increased her public profile.
Fundraising Conviction
In 2024, Smit and Reignite Democracy Australia were convicted in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court for running an unregistered fundraiser to cover legal costs. The fundraiser raised nearly $67,000.
Consumer Affairs Victoria prosecuted the case. Reignite Democracy Australia was fined, while Smit received a conviction and discharge.
Later Activities and Public Statements
Following her imprisonment, Smit self-published a book titled Cell 22, focusing on her experience in custody. She has stated publicly that she has continued advocacy work and travel. These statements are based on her own publicly available claims.
Financial Position
Monica Smit’s net worth is not publicly disclosed. What is verified is that she has incurred substantial legal expenses, including personal legal costs and a court-ordered payment exceeding $200,000.
Legal Significance of the Case
The case clarified the limits of police arrest powers during public health emergencies and reinforced the principle that arrest must be justified beyond mere suspicion of an offence.
It also demonstrated the financial risks of civil litigation, even where unlawful state conduct is established.
Conclusion
The Monica Smit case remains one of the clearest legal legacies of Australia’s pandemic period. It confirmed that police exceeded their lawful powers in arresting her on two occasions, while also demonstrating how civil litigation rules can impose severe financial consequences even when unlawful state conduct is established. The judgment reinforced long-standing principles that arrest is a serious intrusion on personal liberty and must be justified in every instance, including during public health emergencies.
At the same time, the outcome exposed the practical risks faced by individuals who challenge government action through the courts. By applying strict settlement and costs rules, the case showed that legal vindication does not always equate to financial justice. As debates continue around protest rights, emergency powers and police discretion, the Monica Smit ruling stands as a reminder that accountability, liberty and access to justice often intersect in complex and uncomfortable ways.
FAQs
Who is Monica Smit?
Monica Smit is an Australian activist and the founder of Reignite Democracy Australia. She became widely known during Victoria’s COVID-19 lockdowns for her role in anti-lockdown protests and subsequent legal challenges.
Why was Monica Smit arrested in October 2020?
She was arrested during the “Stop the Sale of Victoria” protest in Melbourne for alleged breaches of public health directions, including mask requirements and gathering restrictions.
How many times was Monica Smit arrested on the same day?
She was arrested and released three times on 31 October 2020 during the same protest.
What did the court decide about her arrests?
The County Court of Victoria found that two of the three arrests were unlawful and one arrest was lawful under section 458 of the Crimes Act.
Why was Monica Smit only awarded $4,000 in damages?
The court awarded damages only for the two unlawful arrests and limited the amount due to credibility findings and the short duration of detention.
Why was she ordered to pay more than $200,000 in legal costs?
She rejected a pre-trial settlement offer of $15,000 and later received a lower damages award, leading the court to apply standard civil litigation costs rules.
Did the unlawful arrest case result in a criminal conviction?
No. The civil case dealt only with false imprisonment and damages and did not result in any criminal conviction.
Is Monica Smit still legally active?
She has publicly stated her intention to pursue further legal action related to her 2021 imprisonment, but no confirmed appeal or new case has been publicly filed as of the latest information.
