NSW Supreme Court Strikes Down Protest Ban Near Places of Worship

## Victory for Democratic Rights in New South Wales In a landmark decision that reaffirms the bedrock principles of Australian democracy, the New South Wales Supreme Court has struck down government amendments that sought to restrict the fundamental right to protest. Justice Anna Mitchelmore declared the Minns government's February 2025 amendments invalid, finding they impermissibly burdened the implied constitutional freedom of political communication. ### The Case: Josh Lees v State of New South Wales Josh Lees, representing the Palestine Action Group, challenged amendments that empowered police to move on anyone protesting near a place of worship—regardless of whether there was any disturbance or threat to safety. This blanket prohibition represented a significant expansion of police powers and a corresponding restriction on citizens' rights to peaceful assembly and political expression. ### What the Court Decided Justice Mitchelmore's ruling was unequivocal: the amendments were unconstitutional. The court found that the laws: - Impermissibly burdened the implied freedom of political communication protected by the Australian Constitution - Were arbitrary and ill-considered, rushed through without proper deliberation - Failed to balance legitimate concerns with fundamental democratic rights - Represented government overreach that threatened the very foundation of democratic participation ### Why This Matters for Equity and Rights This decision advances several critical principles: **1. Constitutional Protections Are Real and Enforceable** The ruling demonstrates that constitutional rights are not mere aspirations—they are enforceable limits on government power. When authorities overstep, courts can and will intervene. **2. Protest Rights Cannot Be Arbitrarily Restricted** The decision establishes that governments cannot create blanket prohibitions on protest based solely on location. Any restrictions must be justified by genuine safety concerns, not political convenience. **3. Democratic Participation Is Protected** As Principal Solicitor Peter O'Brien stated, "This is a win for democracy and it's a win for the ability to dissent by way of public assembly and protest." The court recognized that protest is not a privilege granted by government—it is a constitutional cornerstone. ### Actionable Takeaways **For Activists and Protesters:** - You have a constitutional right to peaceful protest that cannot be arbitrarily restricted - Location-based blanket bans on protest are likely unconstitutional - Document any police attempts to move you on without legitimate safety justification - This precedent can be cited in future challenges to protest restrictions **For Legal Advocates:** - The implied freedom of political communication provides robust protection against protest restrictions - Courts will scrutinize whether restrictions are proportionate to legitimate aims - Rushed legislation that fails to properly consider constitutional rights is vulnerable to challenge **For All Citizens:** - Constitutional rights are not abstract—they are practical protections you can invoke - Courts remain independent arbiters who will check government overreach - Collective action through legal challenges can successfully defend democratic rights ### How This Helps You This victory demonstrates that ordinary people, through strategic legal action, can successfully challenge government overreach. The precedent established here strengthens the hand of anyone facing arbitrary restrictions on their right to protest or express political views. It shows that the Constitution "does not sleep"—it remains a living protection against the erosion of democratic freedoms. Whether you're an activist, a concerned citizen, or simply someone who values democratic participation, this ruling affirms that your rights matter and that courts will defend them when government oversteps. The right to protest is not just protected in theory—it's protected in practice, and this case proves it.