In the judgment of Minister for Parks and Gardens v Isaac, 2012 in the Supreme Court of Victoria, Selby J stated:

We must decide whether the Victorian Environmental Officers have exceeded their authority by removing the Respondent from the botanical gardens when he slept there without a permit.  The question before us is whether sleeping on an open patch of grass in the botanical gardens amounts to ‘camping out’ under the Parks and Gardens Act 1992 (Vic).

It has been argued before us ‘camping out’ must include sleeping outdoors without any form of shelter, and thus includes the situation such as the one before us today; that is a person who lies on a grassy area in a public place and falls asleep, even in daylight, is ‘camping’. The argument is that ‘camping out’ in this context means sleeping in any situation, rather than sleeping under some form of a shelter, such as a tent. No doubt, when the Act was passed, the Parliament anticipated that ‘camping out’ would include construction of some form of shelter for overnight stay. It was not anticipated that falling asleep under open air would necessarily amount to camping out.

Nevertheless, I am satisfied that, today, sleeping, whether during daylight, or night, can constitute  ‘camping out’ for the purposes of the Act I have before me. Had the Respondent been merely eating his lunch, reading or pursuing other lawful activities which required him to be awake, but which could be pursued whilst lying down, I would not necessarily include these as being activities which were intended to be proscribed by the Act The fact is that the aim of the Act is to ensure the safety of all users of Victorian parks and gardens, and this does not detract from my finding, in fact it supports it. I am therefore satisfied that the Environmental Officers’ actions were authorised under the Act and the removal was lawful.

An example of obiter in this judgment is: