Groups Challenge NSW Protest Restrictions as Unconstitutional
3 months ago
1 views
Source: The Guardian
TL;DR
The Blak Caucus, Palestine Action Group, and Jews Against the Occupation '48 filed a challenge in NSW Supreme Court against laws restricting protests after terrorist incidents. They argue the laws 'impermissibly burden the implied constitutional freedom of communication on government and political matters.' The laws allow police to prohibit rallies through public assembly restriction declarations. In October 2024, NSW Supreme Court already ruled a similar law allowing police to disperse protesters near places of worship unconstitutional.
A legal challenge against New South Wales laws restricting protests after terrorist incidents has been filed in NSW Supreme Court. The laws, introduced after the Bondi beach attack, allow police to prohibit rallies through a public assembly restriction declaration (PARD).
On Wednesday, the Blak Caucus, Palestine Action Group (PAG), and Jews Against the Occupation '48 filed the challenge. They argue the laws 'impermissibly burden the implied constitutional freedom of communication on government and political matters.'
Justice Julia Lonergan adjourned the case until 29 January, when Chief Justice Andrew Bell will determine if the court of appeal should hear the matter.
The contested laws, rushed through parliament in December 2024, block police authorization for protests under a PARD. NSW Police Commissioner Mal Lanyon recently extended a PARD for Sydney's CBD area until 20 January, citing safety concerns. The declaration can be renewed for up to 90 days, potentially affecting Invasion Day rallies on 26 January.
Groups warn the laws could halt a pro-Palestine rally on 16 January, an Indigenous deaths protest on 18 January (marking the 10th anniversary of David Dungay Jr.'s death in custody), and Invasion Day marches.
This challenge follows a successful October 2024 case where NSW Supreme Court ruled a law allowing police to disperse protesters near places of worship unconstitutional. The groups have a track record of successfully challenging government restrictions on protest rights.
Experts note the laws bypass outright bans but effectively eliminate authorized protests by denying permits—removing legal protections for participants. NSW Council for Civil Liberties president Timothy Roberts criticized the laws for creating a 'chilling effect,' noting police discretion to label protests 'inappropriate.'