The police crackdown was based almost entirely on the existence of that Pard
In the aftermath of a court ruling that struck down a sweeping 90-day protest ban as unconstitutional, New South Wales police have moved to drop charges against demonstrators arrested at a February rally opposing Israeli president Isaac Herzog's visit to Sydney. The law in question — hastily introduced after a deadly terror attack at a Hanukah celebration — was found to reach too far, using social cohesion as a justification courts would not accept. Yet the dropping of charges raises as many questions as it answers, for the legal scaffolding that enabled the crackdown may have other beams still standing, and the state's appetite to control public assembly has not visibly diminished.
- A court has declared the blanket protest ban unconstitutional, pulling the legal ground from beneath dozens of pending prosecutions and forcing police to publicly reverse course.
- Of the 30 people charged after the Herzog rally, it remains deeply unclear who will actually benefit — some face assault or offensive behaviour charges that may survive the ruling entirely.
- Defence lawyers argue the entire crackdown was driven by the now-dead law, making it impossible to cleanly separate which charges can stand on their own feet.
- Police and prosecutors are seeking time to untangle the legal web, with 14 cases adjourned while the force reviews what can still proceed.
- The Palestine Action Group is preparing to challenge a separate 'major events' declaration that could give authorities a second legal avenue to restrict the same kinds of protests.
- Legal experts warn the stakes extend well beyond this case — the constitutional limits on the government's power to silence public speech are now openly in contest.
On a Wednesday morning in May, NSW police commissioner Mal Lanyon announced that charges against protesters arrested under a now-defunct protest restriction law would be dropped. The declaration came after a court of appeal struck down the Public Assembly Restriction Declaration — the Pard — as unconstitutional, but it left a critical question unresolved: which of the 30 people charged would actually see their cases dismissed.
The arrests had taken place in February, when hundreds gathered at Sydney's town hall to protest the visit of Israeli president Isaac Herzog. Police invoked the Pard to prevent a planned march to Parliament House. The law had been introduced in the wake of the Bondi beach terror attack in December, which killed 15 people at a Hanukah celebration, and gave police the power to ban all protests across New South Wales for 90 days. Last month, the court of appeal ruled against it in a case brought by the Palestine Action Group and Blak Caucus, finding that suppressing all speech and assembly in the name of social cohesion was not a constitutionally legitimate purpose.
The complications, however, did not end with the ruling. Premier Chris Minns had suggested that a separate 'major events' declaration — the kind ordinarily applied to sporting events and music festivals — also covered the Herzog protest, meaning some charges might still hold. The 30 accused faced a range of offences: some directly under the Pard, others for assault, offensive behaviour, or failing to comply with police directions. On Wednesday, 14 had their cases adjourned at Downing Centre local court to allow time for review.
Outside the court, lawyer Nick Hanna, representing four of the protesters, called for all charges to be withdrawn. He was unconvinced by any attempt to separate which charges belonged to which legal instrument. The police crackdown, he argued, had been built almost entirely on the Pard's existence — and with that foundation gone, the prosecutions should fall with it. The Palestine Action Group has signalled it may now challenge the major events declaration itself, opening a new front in what is becoming a broader constitutional contest over the limits of state power to govern public dissent.
On a Wednesday morning in May, New South Wales police commissioner Mal Lanyon announced on ABC Radio that his force would drop charges against protesters arrested under a law that no longer exists. The decision came after a court had struck down the public assembly restriction declaration—the Pard—as unconstitutional, but the commissioner's statement left a crucial question unanswered: which of the 30 people charged would actually benefit from the reversal.
The arrests had happened in February, when hundreds gathered at Sydney's town hall to protest the visit of Israeli president Isaac Herzog. Police had invoked the Pard to prevent a march from proceeding to Parliament House, citing the law as their authority to shut down the demonstration. The Pard itself was a blunt instrument, introduced after the Bondi beach terror attack in December, which killed 15 people and wounded more than 40 at a Hanukah celebration. The law gave police the power to ban all protests across New South Wales for 90 days—a sweeping restriction that courts would later find crossed a constitutional line.
Last month, the court of appeal had ruled against the law in a case brought by the Palestine Action Group and Blak Caucus. The judges found that restricting all speech and assembly to protect social cohesion was not a legitimate constitutional purpose. It was a landmark decision, legal experts said, with implications far beyond this single protest. But the ruling created immediate complications. The premier, Chris Minns, had suggested that because the Herzog protest was also covered by a separate "major events" declaration—the kind normally used for sporting or music festivals—charges might still hold for those who refused police directions. That declaration gave officers expanded powers to move people on and search them.
The 30 charged protesters faced a tangle of different offences. Some were charged under the Pard. Others faced assault, offensive behavior, or throwing objects. Still others were accused of failing to comply with police directions, and it was unclear whether those charges fell under the now-dead law or stood independently. On Wednesday, 14 of them had their cases adjourned in Downing Centre local court to allow police time to review which charges could proceed.
Osman Samin, a lawyer for five of the protesters, told the court that the collapse of the Pard "might have consequences for a number of these prosecutions." The police prosecutor acknowledged there were "further reasons" for the review, including "considerations to other challenges in relation to other acts"—a hint that the major events declaration itself might face legal challenge.
Outside the courtroom, Nick Hanna, representing four protesters and calling for all charges to be withdrawn, expressed hope they would be. But he was skeptical of the police effort to separate which charges fell under which law. "The simple reality," he said, "is that the police crackdown was, in no small part, due to the police refusing to facilitate the peaceful march from town hall to Parliament House, and that refusal was based almost entirely, if not entirely, on the existence of that Pard." In other words, the legal architecture had collapsed, but the underlying question remained: whether police could use other tools to achieve the same result. The Palestine Action Group has signaled it may challenge the major events declaration next, setting up another constitutional battle over what power the state can claim in the name of public order.
Citações Notáveis
The police crackdown was, in no small part, due to the police refusing to facilitate the peaceful march from town hall to Parliament House, and that refusal was based almost entirely, if not entirely, on the existence of that Pard.— Nick Hanna, lawyer for four of the arrested protesters
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
So the Pard is gone, but the charges aren't automatically gone. Why the confusion?
Because the police used multiple legal hooks to arrest people that day. Some arrests were purely under the Pard. Others involved separate offences—assault, refusing to move when told. The court only killed the Pard. It didn't touch those other charges.
But the lawyer said the whole crackdown was built on the Pard. Doesn't that matter?
It matters morally and politically, absolutely. He's saying the police wouldn't have made any of those arrests if they'd been required to let the march happen. But legally, if someone actually did throw something or push an officer, that's a separate fact.
So some people might walk free and others might not, even though they were all at the same protest?
That's the mess they're trying to untangle now. And it's why the Palestine Action Group is already preparing to challenge the major events declaration. They're saying: you can't just swap one law for another and call it justice.
What happens if that challenge succeeds too?
Then the government loses another tool. And legal experts think it signals something bigger—that courts won't accept blanket restrictions on protest just because officials say it's necessary for order or cohesion.