NSW Court Blocks Planned Pro-Palestine March to the Opera House
The Palestine Action Group, together with Jews Against Occupation, has lost its bid in the New South Wales Court of Appeal to march from Hyde Park to the Sydney Opera House on 12 October. The plan was to mark two years since the 7 October attacks and subsequent Gaza conflict with a public demonstration calling for “an end to genocide in Gaza.”
Police Citing Safety as Key Reason
On Friday, NSW Police publicly rejected the group’s Form 1 application to march to the Opera House, citing significant safety concerns. Among these were the risk of crowd crush and the limited number of exit points from the forecourt area. The decision prompted the group to pursue a legal challenge in the Court of Appeal earlier this week.
What the Court Decided
The court’s ruling, delivered unanimously by the three-judge panel, did not ban the protest outright. Instead, it clarified that if the march proceeds, participants would not receive immunity from some charges under the Summary Offences Act. This “form 1” system was originally designed to facilitate orderly public assemblies by providing protection from certain anti-protest offenses, should police approve the form. When police refuse, as in this instance, the court retains final say over whether the event can proceed with legal protections for attendees.
<h3 The Safety Assessment
Justice Stephen Free led the court’s consideration, highlighting that the proposed route could involve up to 40,000 participants and featured multiple pinch points as the crowd neared the Opera House forecourt. The judges noted the risk of crowd crush would be heightened as the procession compressed towards the forecourt, where additional security measures and searches by the Opera House Trust could cause delays. These factors, the court said, intensified already fragile public safety conditions.
<h3 Mitigating Factors Not Sufficient
Although the organizers presented mitigatory arguments, the bench found they did not sufficiently reduce the risk to an acceptable level. The court stressed that public safety must take precedence, even when balancing the importance of political expression. The ruling reinforces a long-standing principle that the state can impose restrictions on protests when crowd dynamics and venue logistics create clear safety threats.
<h2 What This Means for Protests and Public Rulings
Many observers view the decision as a reminder that the right to protest is not absolute. Where organizers intend to escalate a demonstration or alter its usual route, authorities may impose conditions or outright restrictions to safeguard attendees and bystanders. The form 1 framework remains a critical mechanism in NSW for determining whether participants can shield themselves from certain charges when police grant permission for a public assembly.
<h2 The Larger Context
Earlier this year, the Palestine Action Group had another legal encounter, challenging a decision related to marching over the Sydney Harbour Bridge. In that case, protesters secured a victory that attracted large crowds, illustrating the variability of court outcomes based on route, crowd size, and venue logistics. The current decision, by contrast, underlines the tightening emphasis on venue-specific safety considerations as protests converge on high-profile public spaces.
<h2 Looking Ahead
As October activities approach, organizers and supporters will need to decide whether to adjust plans or comply with police safety measures. The court’s ruling leaves open the possibility of alternative peaceful actions, but any future application will be scrutinized under the same safety criteria that guided the October decision.
