NSW Court of Appeal Bans Planned Opera House Protest on Public Safety Grounds
The Court of Appeal in New South Wales has prohibited a planned pro-Palestinian march to the Sydney Opera House, siding with police concerns over public safety. The ruling follows a police submission that warned the proposed event, with an estimated 40,000 participants, posed serious risks even if organisers divided marchers into smaller groups. The decision means the rally will not proceed as planned and underscores the government’s willingness to constrain demonstrations near Australia’s best-known cultural icon.
What the Court Decided and Why
Justice Stephen Free, delivering the court’s unanimous view, said the order should stand because the anticipated crowd size, proposed route, and the forecourt’s physical constraints created a risk “so significant” that it would be irresponsible to permit the assembly. The court highlighted that, regardless of the political importance of the cause or the right to public expression, safety concerns take precedence when the risk cannot be managed to an acceptable level.
In their submissions, the organisers argued protest is a powerful form of political communication and that protective measures such as marshals could keep the Opera House forecourt capacity of 6,000 from being exceeded. However, police assistant commissioner Peter McKenna warned that even with protections, crowd dynamics could outstrip safety measures, making a disaster—echoing memories of crowd crush tragedies—a real possibility if exit points fail to cope with mass movement.
Legal Implications of a Prohibition Order
The ruling clarifies that a prohibition order goes beyond stripping participants of certain legal immunities; it operates to prohibit the very holding of the public assembly. The court rejected arguments that breach of the order would not amount to contempt of court, instead emphasizing the clear language of the legislation and the necessity for legal certainty when fundamental rights are restricted for public safety reasons.
Event Details and Responses
The planned route from Hyde Park to Belmore Park via George Street was proposed as a way to manage crowd flow, a plan the PAG argued could proceed safely. Organisers had hoped to stage speeches in Hyde Park and then march to the Opera House forecourt. Despite negotiations, the court’s verdict has left the event canceled. The PAG’s spokesperson, Damien Ridgwell, said a revised route would not proceed to the Opera House, and organisers signalled they would instead request public attention by other means, including signaling support for the Palestinian flag.
Jews Against the Occupation and PAG supporters had maintained that protests are legitimate channels for political expression. The court, however, stressed that timing and risk assessment must trump political symbolism when public safety is at stake. The ruling also touched on broader questions about how authorities balance the right to protest with safety imperatives, particularly around iconic public sites where crowding can quickly become dangerous.
What This Means for Future Protests
Authorities across New South Wales may reference this case when evaluating large-scale demonstrations near major landmarks. The decision reinforces the need for thorough risk planning, explicit emergency access routes, and reliable crowd management strategies before sanctioning mass gatherings, even for events with broad public and political support.
While the Opera House has its own by-laws restricting demonstrations, the court’s decision focuses on the legality and safety of the proposed assembly itself, not the venue’s internal rules. Community advocates argue for careful consideration of dissent in public life, while police and security officials emphasize the prevention of harm as the essential objective. The ruling is a reminder that in a democracy, public safety can, at times, override the immediacy and visibility of protest.
Reactions
Simone Abel of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry welcomed the decision, noting the community’s relief after multiple protests without escalation of fear or violence. The case remains a touchstone for debates over free expression and the limits imposed by safety concerns at nationally symbolic locations.
