What does &quot;reasonable grounds&quot; mean in this Victorian Law?
<p>In Victoria Australia, this piece of legislation exists:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>PARLIAMENTARY PRECINCTS ACT 2001 - SECT 16</strong></p>
<p>An authorised officer may direct a person to leave or not to enter the
Parliamentary precincts if the authorised officer believes on
<strong>reasonable grounds</strong> that the direction is necessary for the <strong>good order</strong>
and security of the Parliamentary precincts.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>My question is, under Victorian or relevant Australian law, what constitutes <em>&quot;reasonable grounds&quot;</em> and what does <em>&quot;good order&quot;</em> mean?</p>
<p>My other question is, can this law be used in a preemptive manner in that an <em>&quot;authorised officer&quot;</em> may give directions based on the past behaviour of the directee in unrelated circumstances outside of parliamentary grounds?</p>

<h2>It has a common meaning across Australia</h2>
<p>“Reasonable grounds” requires the existence of facts which are sufficient to induce that state of mind (e.g. belief, suspicion) in a reasonable person (<a href="https://jade.io/article/67566" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>George v Rockett</em> (1990) 170 CLR 104; Walsh v Loughnan [1991] 2 VR 351</a>).</p>
<p>So, the officer must have the state of mind &quot;that the direction is necessary for the good order and security of the Parliamentary precincts&quot; and that a reasonable person in their position would also have arrived at that state of mind.</p>
<p>“Good order” means able to function normally.</p>
<p>The directive can clearly be preemptive because the instruction can be to &quot;not enter&quot;.</p>

australia victoria