NSW court limits pro-Palestine march to the Sydney Opera House over safety concerns
The Palestine Action Group, working with Jews Against Occupation, lost a bid in the New South Wales Court of Appeal to proceed with a planned march from Hyde Park to the Sydney Opera House on 12 October. The event was billed as part of ongoing near-weekly rallies that have taken place over the past two years to mark the two-year anniversary of the 7 October attacks and the ensuing Gaza war, and to call for an end to what protesters describe as genocide in Gaza.
Police had refused the group’s Form 1 protest notification, arguing safety concerns could not be managed along the route, which would pass through congested areas toward the Opera House forecourt. The court’s decision on Wednesday does not ban the protest entirely, but it removes the protective shield ordinarily offered to participants when a Form 1 is accepted.
What does Form 1 mean for protesters?
In NSW protest law, Form 1 acts as a formal notification to hold a public assembly. When police accept the form, attendees may be shielded from certain charges under the Summary Offences Act, including obstructing traffic. If police refuse Form 1, the matter advances to the courts for a ruling on whether the protest may proceed with the usual legal protections or face potential penalties.
Justice Stephen Free, delivering the court’s unanimous ruling, explained that the refusal to grant Form 1 was rooted in genuine public-safety concerns rather than political intent. He noted that the court’s obligation is to balance peaceful assembly with the risk to bystanders and participants alike.
<h2 Safety concerns highlighted by the court
The bench highlighted several specific issues. Foremost among them was the anticipated crowd size—estimates suggested up to 40,000 participants could gather en route to or at the Opera House forecourt. The judges described the route as having multiple “pinch points” where capacity would constrict, increasing the probability of a dangerous crowd crush as the group neared the venue.
Additionally, Justice Free pointed to operational delays expected at the Opera House forecourt. The Opera House Trust’s protocol for mass events involves security checks, which could slow the crowd’s progression and amplify safety risks. The court observed that even well-intentioned crowd-management measures by organisers could not sufficiently mitigate the dangers inherent to the planned route.
Implications for participants and organisers
With the ruling, the organisers can still pursue public expression around the issue of Gaza and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but attendees will not automatically receive immunity from certain charges if police do not accept Form 1. Those present could be charged under anti-protest provisions if the assembly manifests in ways that breach public order or traffic laws.
Legal experts note that today’s decision underscores NSW authorities’ heightened concern for mass gatherings near major cultural landmarks, and it reflects a broader pattern where safety considerations can override political messaging when risk thresholds are deemed unacceptable.
<h2 Context and broader debate
This decision follows another high-profile protest episode in NSW state history. Just over two months earlier, protesters challenging the Sydney Harbour Bridge route achieved a large turnout before a NSW Supreme Court ruling allowed that march to proceed. The court’s latest decision, however, emphasizes the continuing tension between protecting public safety and safeguarding the right to political expression.
Supporters of the Palestine Action Group have argued that the march would serve as a peaceful demonstration highlighting civilian harm in Gaza and calling for an immediate end to violence. Critics, including some safety officials and the Opera House authorities, warn that the route could create security risks for spectators, workers, and commuters alike.
<h2 Looking ahead
It remains to be seen whether organisers will alter the route, seek a negotiated alternative with police, or pursue further legal avenues. The court’s ruling, while restrictive, does not shut down political speech; instead, it frames the debate within a framework of public-safety stewardship and legal procedure.
As cities navigate the delicate balance between protest rights and crowdsafety, observers say the case may influence how Form 1 elections are adjudicated in future mass demonstrations across Australia.
