The Tasmanian Government has been criticised for spending more than $350,000 of taxpayers' money defending anti-protest laws it was warned might fail in court.

Key points: Liberals' anti-protest laws were aimed at stopping disruptive protests at forestry operations

Liberals' anti-protest laws were aimed at stopping disruptive protests at forestry operations High Court found laws were at odds with the implied right to freedom of political communication

High Court found laws were at odds with the implied right to freedom of political communication The challenge stemmed from the 2016 arrest of Bob Brown in Tasmania's north-west while he was trying to take video footage of loggers

Part of a Tasmanian Liberal crackdown on forest protests, the laws were struck out by the High Court after a successful challenge by former Australian Greens leader Bob Brown in 2017.

The State Government was ordered by the High Court to pay costs, which a spokeswoman has now told the ABC amounted to $355,709.46.

The Workplaces (Protection from Protesters) Act 2014 allowed police to stop protests on business premises and access areas before they started, and put in place $10,000 on-the-spot fines for individual protesters, and jail time for second offences.

The bill was opposed by environmentalists, the Law Society and United Nations human rights experts, and the Liberals were warned the laws might not stand up in court.

Bob Brown and others were arrested as part of a protest in 2016 in Tasmania's north west. ( ABC News: Rhiannon Shine )

Constitutional law expert Brendan Gogarty said the overall cost of the failed laws would be far greater than just the plaintiff and court costs, because of the departmental costs of drafting and amending bills, as well as the Government's own legal costs.

"Substantial and significant government and private resources have been lost in a poorly conceived and executed policy agenda that was roundly criticised for being heavy handed, democratically fraught and legally objectionable by a range of experts and professional bodies long before the High Court struck it down," Mr Gogarty said.

Bob Brown has long been a thorn in the side of forestry interests in Tasmania. ( Supplied: Bob Brown Foundation )

He said the Government should have "definitely expected the invalid legislation to be challenged given the wide-ranging criticism from legal experts across Australia, as well as the stated willingness of various groups to challenge it in the High Court".

"Given the Tasmanian Government decided to pass these form of laws before any other jurisdictions in the face of wide-ranging opposition it was never 'if' but always 'when' - and it was highly unlikely the High Court would refuse to hear a test-case given the novelty and extreme nature of the invalid legislation."

Activism costs to business far greater, Government says

A government spokeswoman said while the High Court costs were more than $355,000, "the financial cost to legitimate Tasmanian businesses and their employees over many years due to having their business activities disrupted is very substantial".

"We make no apologies for standing up for Tasmanians' rights to go about their lawful business and earn a living," she said.

"We've twice taken this policy to elections and received the support of Tasmanians.

"It is a fundamental right for Tasmanians to be able to go about their lawful work without the threat of being intentionally shut down and their business harmed."

But wait, there's more

The State Government has vowed to resurrect the laws and a year on, the legislation is still being redrafted.

"The Government committed to amend the act and consultation will commence soon on these amendments, which will address the concerns raised by the High Court while retaining the overall purpose of the act," the spokeswoman said.

Mr Gogarty said many of the departmental costs required to conceive, draft and carry the bill through Parliament would now be repeated.

"Any new law would need to be much more precise and truly aimed at protecting workplaces from interference from protesters," Mr Gogarty said.

"That's a pretty hard thing to do when you think about all the types of workplaces there are and all the types of protests that might occur."

Mr Gogarty said instead of focusing specifically on protesters, the Government would be better off sticking with existing laws that protect workplaces from interference, or raising the penalties for anyone who interfered with them.

"We don't need a special sub-category of law just for political protesters that is likely to run up against another expensive High Court challenge."