NSW’s highest court strikes down anti-protest law introduced in wake of Bondi beach terror attack
TL;DR
NSW's highest court has overturned an anti-protest law enacted after the Bondi beach terror attack, which restricted protests for up to three months post-attack. The court ruled that the law violated the constitutional right to freedom of communication on political matters.
Key points
- NSW's highest court struck down an anti-protest law.
- The law was enacted after the Bondi beach terror attack.
- The court ruled it violated the constitutional right to freedom of communication.
Mentioned in this story
New South Wales’ highest court has struck downan anti-protest law brought in after the Bondi beach terror attack which gave police the power to restrict marches, including at the anti-Herzog rally earlier this year.
The court of appeal handed down its findings on Thursday after three activist groups – the Blak Caucus, the Palestine Action Group and Jews Against the Occupation ’48 – filed a constitutional challenge in early January against the legislation.
The law, known as the public assembly restriction declaration or Pard, was passed in the wake of the Bondi beach terror attack in which 15 people were killed. It meant protesters could not use the form 1 system in areas designated by police for up to three months after a terrorist attack, effectively meaning protesters could not march without the risk of arrest.
In a major loss for the Minns government, the law will be struck down after the court found the law does impermissibly burden the implied constitutional right to freedom of communication on government and political matters.
Sign up for the Breaking News Australia email
It is the second time in six months an anti-protest law passed by the Minns government has been found unconstitutional by a court.
The restriction was in place in parts of Sydney’s CBD during the rally against the Israeli president Isaac Herzog’s visit in early February, which turned violent and triggered a police watchdog investigation into allegations of widespread police misconduct. The police commissioner, Mal Lanyon, extended the restriction several times over the summer. He ended the restriction after Herzog had left the country.
Police also used the laws to stop Paul Silva, a member of Blak Caucus and one of the plaintiffs in the case, from organising a march against Indigenous deaths in custody starting from Hyde Park, a regular protest site in the city.
Days after preventing Silva from organising a march, the police amended the area covered by the restriction and carved out Hyde Park ahead of a planned march for Invasion Day.
Last October, the Josh Lees, on behalf of the Palestine Action Group, successfully challenged a law that gave police the power to move on protesters for standing “near” a place of worship, regardless of what the protest was about.
David Hume SC, who acted on behalf of the groups in the most recent challenge, argued during the hearing in February that the laws were counterproductive and made the government’s own objective of enhancing social cohesion “worse”.
Brendan Lim SC, who acted on behalf of the state government, argued that the law was a “confined rolling back” of the legal protections ordinarily offered by the form 1 system. He said that was justified because the community was experiencing the aftermath of a terrorist attack.
More to come.
Q&A
What was the anti-protest law in New South Wales?
The anti-protest law, known as the public assembly restriction declaration (Pard), allowed police to restrict protests in designated areas for up to three months following a terrorist attack.
Why did the NSW court strike down the anti-protest law?
The court found that the law impermissibly burdened the implied constitutional right to freedom of communication on government and political matters.
What impact does the court's decision have on future protests in NSW?
The decision allows for greater freedom of assembly, meaning protesters can now march without the risk of arrest under the previously imposed restrictions.
