In New South Wales, two Indigenous mothers have reached a confidential settlement with police after enduring years of nighttime visits — sometimes exceeding 150 in under two years — framed as bail compliance checks but often conducted without the court authorization the law requires. The case sits at the intersection of state power, Indigenous rights, and the quiet violence of procedural overreach, where the machinery of public safety became, for these families, a source of fear and exhaustion. Though the settlement closes one chapter, the deeper question — whether race shaped the targeting —
NSW police settle trespass case over 150 home visits to Indigenous families
Indigenous children experienced sleep deprivation, school absences, and psychological trauma from repeated nighttime police visits; families endured stress and fear affecting trust in law enforcement.
They've already done the damage, and it will take a lot for my boys to start trusting police again.
Mark
So the settlement was confidential—do we know what NSW police actually paid, or what they agreed to?
Mimi
No, the terms are sealed. We know the case settled three weeks before trial, which usually signals both sides wanted to avoid the risk of a judgment. But the dollar amount and any specific commitments are private.
Luke
That's worth flagging. A confidential settlement can look like accountability, but it also means the public never learns the full scope of what happened or what the force committed to changing.
Mark
The Law Enforcement Conduct Commission found police were overreaching. Did that report lead to any policy changes?
Mimi
The source doesn't say. The commission's 2025 report identified the problem—that officers were using weak legal reasoning to justify checks without court orders—but we don't have information about what followed.
Luke
That's a real gap. A finding of misconduct means nothing if there's no consequence or reform attached to it.
Mark
What strikes me most is the timing of the visits. Midnight to 4am. That's not about checking compliance; that's about disruption.
Mimi
Exactly. Megan described it as frightening and stressful. Her kids missed school because of exhaustion. That's not a side effect of the checks—that's the lived experience of them.
Luke
Though we should be careful: we have the mothers' account of how the visits felt and what they caused. The police haven't publicly responded to those specific descriptions. We know their general defense—that checks are lawful and necessary—but not their response to the allegation that visits were deliberately timed to maximize disruption.
Mark
And then there's the federal case about racial discrimination. That's still pending?
Mimi
Yes. Megan and her sons are arguing the boys were targeted because they're Aboriginal. That case could reframe the whole story.
Luke
It could—but right now it's an allegation, not a finding. We don't know what evidence they have or how strong the case is. The settlement of the trespass claim doesn't tell us anything about the merits of the discrimination claim.
Il Polso
- Police visited one family's home more than 150 times in 20 months, with many checks arriving between midnight and 4am — officers banging on doors, shining torches through windows, entering through back gates while children slept.
- The relentless intrusions left children too exhausted to attend school and instilled a lasting fear of law enforcement that, in the words of one mother, has already done damage that will take years to undo.
- Legal advocates argued that a significant number of these visits lacked the court authorization NSW law requires, making them not compliance checks but trespass — a finding echoed by the state's own Law Enforcement Conduct Commission in 2025.
- NSW police defended the visits as a lawful and necessary tool for managing bail risk, but the commission concluded officers were stretching weak legal reasoning to justify entries onto private property.
- A confidential settlement was reached three weeks before a Supreme Court trial, but the matter is far from resolved — federal racial discrimination claims allege the families were targeted because their sons are Aboriginal, and that litigation continues.
In New South Wales, two Indigenous mothers have reached a confidential settlement with police after enduring years of nighttime visits — sometimes exceeding 150 in under two years — framed as bail compliance checks but often conducted without the court authorization the law requires. The case sits at the intersection of state power, Indigenous rights, and the quiet violence of procedural overreach, where the machinery of public safety became, for these families, a source of fear and exhaustion. Though the settlement closes one chapter, the deeper question — whether race shaped the targeting — moves now into federal court, where it may find a fuller reckoning.
Two Indigenous mothers in New South Wales have settled a legal case against police over what they describe as relentless, often unlawful visits to their homes — a resolution reached three weeks before the matter was due before the Supreme Court, with terms kept confidential.
One woman, using the pseudonym Megan, had officers arrive at her regional NSW home more than 150 times over 20 months. Her two sons — found as passengers in a stolen car when they were 11 and 13 — had been released on bail, and police used that status to conduct what they called compliance checks, many falling between midnight and 4am. Officers banged on doors, shone torches through windows, and entered through back gates in the middle of the night. Her children missed school from exhaustion. "They've already done the damage," Megan said, "and it will take a lot for my boys to start trusting police again." A second complainant, Joanne, faced more than 90 visits in 18 months at her western Sydney home, including three in a single night — leaving her youngest daughter too tired to attend school the following morning.
The Justice and Equity Centre, representing both women, argued that many visits were conducted without the court authorization NSW law requires, rendering them trespass rather than lawful compliance checks. NSW police maintained their officers acted within the law. But a 2025 report from the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission found otherwise — concluding that police had overreached, relying on weak legal reasoning to justify entries onto private property without proper authorization.
The settlement does not close the matter entirely. Megan and her sons have filed a separate federal court claim alleging racial discrimination, arguing their Aboriginal identity made them a target. That case remains ongoing, and may yet answer whether the pattern of visits was shaped not by risk, but by race.
Two Indigenous mothers in New South Wales have settled a legal case against police over what they describe as relentless and often unlawful visits to their homes. The settlement came three weeks before the case was set to go to trial in the supreme court, and the terms remain confidential.
One of the women, who uses the pseudonym Megan to protect her privacy, had police show up at her regional NSW home more than 150 times over the course of 20 months. Her two sons, found as passengers in a stolen car when they were 11 and 13 years old, were released on bail—and police used that as grounds to conduct what they called compliance checks. Many of these visits happened between midnight and 4am. Megan described officers banging on doors, shining torches through windows, and letting themselves in through the back gate in the dead of night. The visits were frightening and exhausting for her family. Her children missed school because they were too tired to attend. "My eldest is driving around with his head held high now, knowing police can't just randomly pull him over," Megan said. "But I know he's still shaking in fear about what they could do. They've already done the damage, and it will take a lot for my boys to start trusting police again."
The second complainant, who goes by the name Joanne, experienced something similar. Police visited her western Sydney home more than 90 times in 18 months to check on her son's bail compliance. On one occasion, officers came three times within a few hours. These checks often fell on school nights, leaving her youngest daughter too exhausted to get to class the next morning.
The Justice and Equity Centre, which represented both women in court, argued that many of the bail checks were conducted without the court authorization required by NSW law. Police are permitted to attend private residences to verify bail compliance, but only when a court has authorized them to do so. The centre contended that the visits without such authorization amounted to trespass. NSW police maintained that officers were acting lawfully and that bail compliance checks are a necessary tool for public safety and managing the risks of releasing people on bail during ongoing court proceedings.
But a report from the state's Law Enforcement Conduct Commission, released in 2025, found that police had overreached. The commission determined that officers were stretching their authority by relying on weak legal reasoning to conduct bail checks without proper court authorization. Kate Sinclair, the solicitor representing Megan and Joanne, praised her clients for their willingness to challenge the police force. "They did it for their families and their communities and we respect their courage," she said.
The case does not end here. Megan and her sons have filed a separate claim in federal court alleging racial discrimination, arguing that the boys were targeted because they are Aboriginal. That litigation is still ongoing, and it may yet reveal whether the pattern of visits was shaped by the race of the families involved.
Citazioni salienti
My eldest is driving around with his head held high now, knowing police can't just randomly pull him over. But I know he's still shaking in fear about what they could do.— Megan, one of the complainants
They did it for their families and their communities and we respect their courage.— Kate Sinclair, solicitor for the mothers
Vuoi la storia completa?
Leggi l'originale su The Guardian ↗
Crime & Justice