NSW Court Rules Against Planned Opera House Rally
The highest court in New South Wales has granted a prohibition order preventing a large-scale pro-Palestinian rally planned for the Sydney Opera House forecourt. Police argued the event posed an extreme risk to public safety, and the Court of Appeal agreed, ruling that the assembly could not proceed under the circumstances presented by organisers.
Pro-Palestinian Organisers and Police Positions
The Palestine Action Group (PAG) and allied activists had estimated about 40,000 participants would attend, beginning with speeches in Hyde Park before marching toward the Opera House forecourt. The organisers proposed dividing the crowd into smaller processions to manage movement and then dispersal near the forecourt. Police, however, warned that the plan risked a “disaster” given the limited exit points and potential for a crowd crush as thousands converged on a constrained area.
Judicial Reasoning and Legal Consequences
Justice Stephen Free, delivering the court’s summary, stated that the public safety risk was so significant that allowing the rally would be irresponsible, even considering the political importance of political expression. The decision, issued by a unanimous panel of the Court of Appeal, confirms that a prohibition order not only deprives participants of certain legal immunities but also clarifies the consequences of attending a prohibited event.
The court emphasized that the order’s terms must reflect the legal reality: a prohibition against holding the public assembly. It rejected arguments from PAG’s lawyers that breaches of such orders would not amount to contempt of court due to constitutional protections around rallies. The judgment made clear: the prohibition operates to prevent the proposed assembly from taking place, and violations could carry contempt implications as the language of the statute intends.
Safety Concerns and Practicalities
Police submissions underscored the complexity of managing a large crowd within the Opera House’s vicinity, including a 6,000-person capacity limit for the forecourt and a finite emergency corridor. Assistant Commissioner Peter McKenna warned that even with marshals and protective measures, crowd numbers beyond a safe threshold could overwhelm control measures. He noted doubts that attendees would disperse once reaching the forecourt, a key concern for preventing bottlenecks and ensuring emergency access.
What Was Seen as the Alternatives?
Organisers argued that the event was an exercise in peaceful political expression and suggested a strategy to mitigate risks. They cited prior protests where crowds behaved cooperatively under police direction. Yet the court held that “moments in politics” do not absolve risk, and timing and safety planning must be robust for events of this scale. The ruling also references the historical caution surrounding crowd management, invoking lessons from past tragedies to underscore the court’s stance on risk mitigation.
Impact on Attendees and the Community
With the prohibition in place, attendees won’t be able to legally participate under the planned banner. PAG spokesperson Damien Ridgwell acknowledged the decision, noting a revised route had been discussed with police—from Hyde Park through George Street to Belmore Park—but the court’s ruling effectively halted the original plan to converge at the Opera House forecourt. Outside the court, Ridgwell indicated the group would instead appeal or pursue other lawful avenues for protest, while some supporters called for symbolic acts, such as lighting up the Opera House in Palestinian colors at a later time.
Operatic Grounds and Institutional Reactions
The Sydney Opera House, which has its own by-laws restricting public demonstrations, would have screened attendees and managed security as part of any large-scale gathering. Opera House management, which did not receive direct notification about the planned rally, outlined that it would cooperate with police guidance and enforce site-by-site safety measures if required. Civil society figures, including representatives from the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, welcomed the court’s decision, noting concerns about threats, intimidation, or disruptions that can accompany large protests.
Broader Context: Freedom of Expression vs Public Safety
The ruling sits at the intersection of political expression and public safety. While authorities rightly emphasize the importance of peaceful protest and democratic participation, the decision reinforces the judiciary’s role in assessing practical risk, venue constraints, and emergency response considerations when planning demonstrations near iconic civic spaces. It also signals potential precedent for how future large-scale gatherings near sensitive sites will be evaluated under NSW law.
As NSW continues to navigate tense geopolitical debates within its public spaces, organizers and authorities alike acknowledge that lawful political expression remains vital, even as public safety considerations take precedence in specific contexts.
