Sydney pro-Palestine protest planned for Opera House blocked by NSW Court of Appeal

Deputy Police Commissioner Peter McKenna told the court on Wednesday he had significant concerns about “ingress and egress” to the Opera House forecourt and that it had “disaster written all over it”. He said it was “not appropriate” for 40,000 to 100,000 people to gather in the area.

Disrespect warning

Chief Justice Bell suggested at Wednesday’s hearing that “anyone who is aware” of the restraining order would be “in contempt of court” if they attended a planned protest.

His comments appeared to mark a significant departure from previous decisions by single judges of the NSW Supreme Court. including Judge Belinda Rigg earlier this year.

It has been evaluated that these decisions are an issue that distinguishes a restraining order from a direct ban.

Lawyers for protest organizers Palestine Action Group and Jews Against Occupation argued that the restraining order was not a ban but merely eliminated a relatively narrow immunity granted to protesters at authorized marches from criminal liability for actions such as obstructing traffic.

Loading

In the view of the protest organizers, this means that participating in the march was not in contempt of court because the restraining order did not prevent it.

In his ruling rejecting a police application for a banning order on the historic pro-Palestinian march on the Sydney Harbor Bridge in August, Rigg said the effect of the banning order “does not amount to preventing the meeting from taking place”.

“The opposite result would be that immunity would not apply,” Rigg said.

restraining order

Bell took a different view at Wednesday’s hearing, and the Court of Appeals confirmed in its unanimous decision Thursday that a restraining order “operates entirely to do what the terms of the order suggest, namely, to prohibit the holding of the proposed public meeting.”

He said that if he had knowledge of the order, “a breach of this order may subject a person to contempt of court” and that in some cases this “may include persons who are not parties to the proceedings in which the order is made”.

The court said, “It would be extremely inappropriate for the legislature to grant the court the authority to issue a decision ‘prohibiting’ public meetings if the terms of this decision do not fully reflect the legal outcome of the decision.”

“The better view, therefore, is that an order prohibiting the holding of a public meeting does more than deprive those attending a public meeting of protection. [given to protesters in authorised public assemblies].”

The court was initially asked to rule. Offenses under the Opera House charter Prohibition protests on the ground were covered by the limited immunity offered to protesters at authorized marches. If the ban decision had not been made, the march would have been allowed.

Ultimately, the court did not resolve this issue because it became hypothetical in the context of the decision to ban the protest. It also meant that he disregarded the protest organisers’ claim that the regulations were contrary to the freedom of political communication implied in the Commonwealth Constitution.