NSW anti-protest law ruled unconstitutional after Palestine Action Group court challenge | New South Wales

The New South Wales supreme court has struck down a law that gave police expanded powers to prevent protests near places of worship.

Josh Lees, on behalf of the Palestine Action Group, objected to the law on the grounds that it was unconstitutional.

Judge Anna Mitchelmore ruled on Thursday that police powers impermissibly burden the freedom of political communication enshrined in Australia’s constitution.

The challenge comes after the NSW government adopted changes aimed at stopping antisemitism in February. including this a law This gave police the authority to intervene with protesters who were “in or near” the place of worship.

_{Sign up: AÜ Breaking News email}

This has raised fears that broader powers could see police shut down protests at key sites such as City Hall and Hyde Park, which are close to places of worship in Sydney. The transit powers did not stipulate that the protest had to be directed at the place of worship: it could be about anything.

At the hearing in June, lawyers for the Palestine Action Group argued that the “uncertainty” in the law’s content created a “chilling effect” because neither protesters nor police officers could determine the scope of the powers.

The state of NSW argued the laws had a “clear and legitimate purpose” to protect religious communities trying to access a place of worship from physical obstruction, physical or verbal abuse, intimidation or incitement to intimidation.

Michael Sexton SC, appearing for the state of NSW, told the court the term “in or near” was limited to these situations.

Catalyst of the bill

The court heard that the catalyst for the places of worship bill was a protest outside the Great Synagogue, where a member of the Israel Defense Forces spoke.

“[It] “It was not a religious event,” PAG’s lawyer, Felicity Graham, told the court.

During A debate in February Labor MP Stephen Lawrence told parliament that the fact that the synagogue protest was the catalyst showed there was not the “clear intent of the bill” as the government claimed.

Guardian Australia understands the law caused friction within the Labor Party’s internal caucus after it was introduced. During the meeting, Labor MP Anthony D’Adam had introduced a motion to redesign the bill; Thus, the obstruction would be limited to situations where the protest was directed at the place of worship.

Both Lawrence and another Labor MP, Cameron Murphy, had warned that without this restriction the law could be found unconstitutional.

Prime Minister Chris Minns said in March that the government believed the laws were “constitutionally sound”.

“I’m not going to second-guess the courts,” he told reporters. “It’s up to them to make a decision.

“People should have the freedom to practice their religion without fear and hatred… and that’s why we pass the laws in the first place.”

The proposed legislation expanded the Crimes Act to make it an offense to deny access to a place of worship without reasonable excuse or to “harass, intimidate or threaten” people with access to places of worship. It was stated that the crime would attract a maximum prison sentence of two years.

The police were subsequently granted relevant passing powers, which is the section the PAG objected to.

The laws were part of changes passed in February following a series of antisemitic attacks over the summer, including the discovery of an explosives-laden caravan on the outskirts of Sydney.

two weeks later legislation Following the passage of the law, Australian federal police said they believed the caravan and anti-Semitic attacks were a “hoax” by organized crime to divert police resources and influence investigations.

The revelation triggered an upper house investigation into what Minns and senior cabinet ministers knew about the attacks before passing the legislation. The investigation, supported by the coalition, the Greens and cross-bench members, has yet to release its findings.