Sweeping move-on police powers blasted by protesters

The Advertiser

19-06-2025

Controversial new laws grant police an unconstitutional level of power and could have a chilling effect on protests, critics have claimed in a court challenge.
Josh Lees, on behalf of the Palestinian Action Group, has taken the NSW government to the NSW Supreme Court over the anti-protest laws implemented in February.
The activist is challenging the constitutional validity of police powers to move people on during protests deemed to be near places of worship.
His lawyers argue the laws allow police to direct protesters to desist, even in instances where there is no evidence a worshipper has been obstructed, harassed or is in fear.
That meant the laws have stretched police powers beyond their legitimate constitutional bounds, the court was told.
The lawyers claim neither police nor protesters can determine the reach of those powers or the definition of nearness to a place of worship to take into consideration.
"Because of those vagaries, the upshot is that a person might just stay home," Craig Lenehan SC told the court.
He took aim at the "legislative blunderbuss" which he said was "blasting away at an ill-defined mischief" and could have a chilling effect on protesting in NSW.
The laws were discriminatory because they expressly targeted certain types of political speech in a way that inevitably favoured some viewpoints over others, Mr Lenehan contended.
When deciding to move on protesters, police needed to make a subjective determination of whether someone feels obstructed or fearful near a place of worship.
That could be extended beyond worshippers to the protection of passers-by and people unconnected to the holy place, Mr Lenehan said.
"(It) is a very broad police power conferred by very ill-defined application," he said.
"It has nothing to do with the exercise of religious freedom."
NSW Solicitor General Michael Sexton SC will address the court about the validity of the new legislation on behalf of the state government on Thursday afternoon.
The laws were introduced by the state Labor government after a spate of anti-Semitic attacks across the nation and amid concerns about rallies going past the Great Synagogue in the Sydney CBD.
Before their passage, Attorney-General Michael Daley said stronger penalties and boosted police powers would ensure people could practise their faith in safety.
"We believe these proposed reforms strike the right balance between protecting people of faith and the community's right to protest," he said.
Premier Chris Minns underscored his determination to protect the Jewish community in his first speech to parliament in 2025.
"We will not be a state where someone feels like they have to remove their yarmulke (skullcap) just to walk down the street, where people are made to hide their heritage because of the ignorance, the bigotry, the racism of other people," he said.
Mr Lees said the challenge against the expanded police powers was urgent because they presented a threat to the right to protest in NSW.
Controversial new laws grant police an unconstitutional level of power and could have a chilling effect on protests, critics have claimed in a court challenge.
Josh Lees, on behalf of the Palestinian Action Group, has taken the NSW government to the NSW Supreme Court over the anti-protest laws implemented in February.
The activist is challenging the constitutional validity of police powers to move people on during protests deemed to be near places of worship.
His lawyers argue the laws allow police to direct protesters to desist, even in instances where there is no evidence a worshipper has been obstructed, harassed or is in fear.
That meant the laws have stretched police powers beyond their legitimate constitutional bounds, the court was told.
The lawyers claim neither police nor protesters can determine the reach of those powers or the definition of nearness to a place of worship to take into consideration.
"Because of those vagaries, the upshot is that a person might just stay home," Craig Lenehan SC told the court.
He took aim at the "legislative blunderbuss" which he said was "blasting away at an ill-defined mischief" and could have a chilling effect on protesting in NSW.
The laws were discriminatory because they expressly targeted certain types of political speech in a way that inevitably favoured some viewpoints over others, Mr Lenehan contended.
When deciding to move on protesters, police needed to make a subjective determination of whether someone feels obstructed or fearful near a place of worship.
That could be extended beyond worshippers to the protection of passers-by and people unconnected to the holy place, Mr Lenehan said.
"(It) is a very broad police power conferred by very ill-defined application," he said.
"It has nothing to do with the exercise of religious freedom."
NSW Solicitor General Michael Sexton SC will address the court about the validity of the new legislation on behalf of the state government on Thursday afternoon.
The laws were introduced by the state Labor government after a spate of anti-Semitic attacks across the nation and amid concerns about rallies going past the Great Synagogue in the Sydney CBD.
Before their passage, Attorney-General Michael Daley said stronger penalties and boosted police powers would ensure people could practise their faith in safety.
"We believe these proposed reforms strike the right balance between protecting people of faith and the community's right to protest," he said.
Premier Chris Minns underscored his determination to protect the Jewish community in his first speech to parliament in 2025.
"We will not be a state where someone feels like they have to remove their yarmulke (skullcap) just to walk down the street, where people are made to hide their heritage because of the ignorance, the bigotry, the racism of other people," he said.
Mr Lees said the challenge against the expanded police powers was urgent because they presented a threat to the right to protest in NSW.
Controversial new laws grant police an unconstitutional level of power and could have a chilling effect on protests, critics have claimed in a court challenge.
Josh Lees, on behalf of the Palestinian Action Group, has taken the NSW government to the NSW Supreme Court over the anti-protest laws implemented in February.
The activist is challenging the constitutional validity of police powers to move people on during protests deemed to be near places of worship.
His lawyers argue the laws allow police to direct protesters to desist, even in instances where there is no evidence a worshipper has been obstructed, harassed or is in fear.
That meant the laws have stretched police powers beyond their legitimate constitutional bounds, the court was told.
The lawyers claim neither police nor protesters can determine the reach of those powers or the definition of nearness to a place of worship to take into consideration.
"Because of those vagaries, the upshot is that a person might just stay home," Craig Lenehan SC told the court.
He took aim at the "legislative blunderbuss" which he said was "blasting away at an ill-defined mischief" and could have a chilling effect on protesting in NSW.
The laws were discriminatory because they expressly targeted certain types of political speech in a way that inevitably favoured some viewpoints over others, Mr Lenehan contended.
When deciding to move on protesters, police needed to make a subjective determination of whether someone feels obstructed or fearful near a place of worship.
That could be extended beyond worshippers to the protection of passers-by and people unconnected to the holy place, Mr Lenehan said.
"(It) is a very broad police power conferred by very ill-defined application," he said.
"It has nothing to do with the exercise of religious freedom."
NSW Solicitor General Michael Sexton SC will address the court about the validity of the new legislation on behalf of the state government on Thursday afternoon.
The laws were introduced by the state Labor government after a spate of anti-Semitic attacks across the nation and amid concerns about rallies going past the Great Synagogue in the Sydney CBD.
Before their passage, Attorney-General Michael Daley said stronger penalties and boosted police powers would ensure people could practise their faith in safety.
"We believe these proposed reforms strike the right balance between protecting people of faith and the community's right to protest," he said.
Premier Chris Minns underscored his determination to protect the Jewish community in his first speech to parliament in 2025.
"We will not be a state where someone feels like they have to remove their yarmulke (skullcap) just to walk down the street, where people are made to hide their heritage because of the ignorance, the bigotry, the racism of other people," he said.
Mr Lees said the challenge against the expanded police powers was urgent because they presented a threat to the right to protest in NSW.
Controversial new laws grant police an unconstitutional level of power and could have a chilling effect on protests, critics have claimed in a court challenge.
Josh Lees, on behalf of the Palestinian Action Group, has taken the NSW government to the NSW Supreme Court over the anti-protest laws implemented in February.
The activist is challenging the constitutional validity of police powers to move people on during protests deemed to be near places of worship.
His lawyers argue the laws allow police to direct protesters to desist, even in instances where there is no evidence a worshipper has been obstructed, harassed or is in fear.
That meant the laws have stretched police powers beyond their legitimate constitutional bounds, the court was told.
The lawyers claim neither police nor protesters can determine the reach of those powers or the definition of nearness to a place of worship to take into consideration.
"Because of those vagaries, the upshot is that a person might just stay home," Craig Lenehan SC told the court.
He took aim at the "legislative blunderbuss" which he said was "blasting away at an ill-defined mischief" and could have a chilling effect on protesting in NSW.
The laws were discriminatory because they expressly targeted certain types of political speech in a way that inevitably favoured some viewpoints over others, Mr Lenehan contended.
When deciding to move on protesters, police needed to make a subjective determination of whether someone feels obstructed or fearful near a place of worship.
That could be extended beyond worshippers to the protection of passers-by and people unconnected to the holy place, Mr Lenehan said.
"(It) is a very broad police power conferred by very ill-defined application," he said.
"It has nothing to do with the exercise of religious freedom."
NSW Solicitor General Michael Sexton SC will address the court about the validity of the new legislation on behalf of the state government on Thursday afternoon.
The laws were introduced by the state Labor government after a spate of anti-Semitic attacks across the nation and amid concerns about rallies going past the Great Synagogue in the Sydney CBD.
Before their passage, Attorney-General Michael Daley said stronger penalties and boosted police powers would ensure people could practise their faith in safety.
"We believe these proposed reforms strike the right balance between protecting people of faith and the community's right to protest," he said.
Premier Chris Minns underscored his determination to protect the Jewish community in his first speech to parliament in 2025.
"We will not be a state where someone feels like they have to remove their yarmulke (skullcap) just to walk down the street, where people are made to hide their heritage because of the ignorance, the bigotry, the racism of other people," he said.
Mr Lees said the challenge against the expanded police powers was urgent because they presented a threat to the right to protest in NSW.