fringillidae wrote:
I disagree, MP. I think this worked out exactly as it should have. 

The judiciary are here to provide an impartial balance between the power of the state and the rights of the individual. In this case, the state's action would have caused harm to a vulnerable group. It's exactly the Court's job to step in and remedy that imbalance. 

I'm sure you'll recall the old law school adage about democracy - it's not majority rules, it's protection of minority rights. Which is precisely why politicians should never be given unfettered discretion to decide the rights of the people. Their motives cannot help but be tainted by knowledge that the next election is determined by the majority of votes - a mindset most brilliantly illustrated by the current government's "tough on crime" bullshit agenda.
And I would disagree with calling access to a safe injection site a "right".  It a matter of health and social policy, not a right.