## The Victory
In a decisive victory for free speech and democratic participation, the Supreme Court of New South Wales struck down Section 200(5) of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW) in *Lees v State of New South Wales* (2025). The Court held that this provision, which restricted protesting near places of worship, impermissibly burdened the implied constitutional freedom of political communication and was therefore invalid.
## What Was at Stake
The challenged law created 'safe access zones' around places of worship, prohibiting protests within a certain distance. While framed as protecting religious freedom, the law effectively silenced political speech in public spaces—a fundamental democratic right.
The case arose when protesters sought to demonstrate on issues of public concern near religious institutions. The government argued that protecting worshippers from disruption justified the restrictions. But the Court saw through this rationale, recognizing it as an unconstitutional limitation on political expression.
## The Legal Victory
The Supreme Court applied the well-established test for the implied freedom of political communication, which is derived from the Australian Constitution's system of representative government. For a law to survive this scrutiny, it must:
1. Not burden political communication, OR
2. If it does burden political communication, be justified as necessary and proportionate to a legitimate purpose
The Court found that Section 200(5) clearly burdened political communication by restricting where and when people could engage in protest—a core form of political expression. The government failed to demonstrate that this burden was justified.
Crucially, the Court recognized that protest is not merely 'speech' but a vital form of democratic participation, particularly for those without access to traditional media or political power. Restricting where protests can occur effectively silences voices that need to be heard.
## Why This Advances Rights and Equity
This decision reinforces several critical principles:
**Protection of Dissent**: Democracy requires space for dissent, including dissent that makes others uncomfortable. The Court recognized that protecting only convenient or popular speech is not protection at all.
**Public Space as Democratic Space**: The ruling affirms that public spaces—including areas near religious institutions—are forums for democratic expression. Governments cannot carve out 'speech-free zones' without compelling justification.
**Equality in Expression**: Protest is often the only avenue for marginalized communities to make their voices heard. By protecting protest rights, the Court protected the ability of ordinary people to participate in democracy on equal terms with powerful institutions.
## Actionable Takeaways
**1. Challenge 'Safe Access Zone' Laws**: If your jurisdiction has laws creating protest-free zones around any institutions—whether religious, medical, or governmental—this decision provides a framework for constitutional challenge. The burden is on the government to prove such restrictions are necessary, not on citizens to prove their right to protest.
**2. Assert Your Right to Protest in Public Spaces**: This ruling confirms that public footpaths, streets, and spaces are legitimate venues for political expression. Police or authorities attempting to move protesters from public areas must have specific, articulable reasons beyond general 'disruption' concerns.
**3. Document and Challenge Overreach**: If you're prevented from protesting in a public space, document the interaction. This decision gives you grounds to challenge such restrictions, either in the moment or through subsequent legal action.
## How This Helps You
Whether you're an activist, a concerned citizen, or simply someone who believes in democratic participation, this decision protects your right to make your voice heard. It establishes that the freedom to protest is not a privilege granted by government but a constitutional right that can only be restricted in the most compelling circumstances.
For organizers planning protests, this ruling provides legal backing to resist attempts to push demonstrations into 'designated protest zones' far from their intended audience. Your right to protest includes the right to protest where your message will be seen and heard.
For lawyers and advocates, *Lees v State of New South Wales* is a powerful precedent for challenging laws that restrict political communication. It demonstrates that courts will scrutinize such restrictions and strike them down when they go too far.
Most importantly, this case reminds us that constitutional freedoms are not abstract principles—they are living rights that courts will enforce when governments overreach. It shows that challenging unjust laws works, and that the judiciary can be a powerful ally in protecting democratic freedoms.
The right to protest is the right to be heard. This decision ensures that right remains protected in New South Wales and provides a model for protecting it elsewhere.