NSW court blocks planned pro-Palestine march to the Sydney Opera House
A NSW court of appeal has refused to grant a permit for a pro-Palestine march to the Sydney Opera House, arguing that crowd safety risks could not be adequately mitigated. The decision comes after the Palestine Action Group, joined by Jews Against Occupation, sought to diverge from their usual route and march from Hyde Park to the Opera House on 12 October to mark the two-year anniversary of the 7 October attacks and ongoing Gaza conflict.
Legal framework and the form 1 protest system
The police had previously announced they would not approve the march on safety grounds, citing potential crowd crush risks due to a large anticipated turnout and limited exit points at the forecourt. The court’s ruling does not ban the protest itself; rather, it means participants would not receive immunity from certain charges under the Summary Offences Act if the march occurred under police form 1 approval.
Under Australia’s protest oversight regime, a “form 1” process—formerly a notification to hold a public assembly—offers attendees a shield from some anti-protest charges if police accept the arrangement. When police refuse a form 1, as in this case, the matter falls to the courts to determine whether the gathering may proceed with or without legal protections for participants.
Court’s assessment: safety risks at the Opera House route
Justice Stephen Free, delivering the unanimous decision on behalf of the appeal panel, highlighted multiple safety concerns. He warned that an expected crowd of around 40,000 could be channeled through a route featuring several pinch points that would narrow significantly as people approach the Opera House forecourt. These conditions, he said, would heighten the risk of a crowd crush, a danger deemed unacceptable even amid strong political expression.
The judge also noted potential delays arising from searches by the Opera House Trust for mass events. Such searches could slow crowd movement, exacerbating congestion and elevating the risk of crush injuries as the event neared the forecourt. While the organizers proposed mitigations, the court judged that these measures did not sufficiently reduce safety risks to an acceptable level.
Safety concerns trump political messaging in this case
The decision underscores a broader tension between the right to protest and public safety imperatives during large demonstrations. The court explicitly stated that the risk to public safety was significant enough to make proceeding with the assembly irresponsible, despite the political importance of protesting against ongoing conflicts and calling for humanitarian action.
Justice Free’s remarks reflect a careful balance: protecting peaceful political expression while safeguarding the public from harm when large crowds gather in urban spaces with complex access points and security protocols. The court’s ruling does not disallow the cause or the sentiments behind it; it restricts a specific route and the associated legal protections that would have otherwise applied.
What’s next for the organizers and supporters
The Palestine Action Group and its allies may explore alternative, less risky routes or timing that comply with safety assessments and police oversight. They may also seek other legal avenues or adjust their strategy to keep focus on Gaza and calls to end violence, without triggering the specific hazards identified by authorities.
As public demonstrations continue to shape debates on foreign policy, human rights, and security, authorities say thorough risk assessments and crowd management plans remain essential to protect both participants and bystanders in busy city spaces.
