Pro-Palestinian protesters will be legally protected while marching across the Sydney Harbour Bridge on Sunday after a New South Wales supreme court decision.
In her judgment, Justice Belinda Rigg stated that the march at this location is motivated by the belief that the horror and urgency of the situation in Gaza demands a strong response from the global community.
The evidence shows there is significant support for the march.
The Palestine Action Group estimates that as many as 50,000 people will participate in the march across the iconic bridge, protesting Israel’s actions in Gaza and the starvation of children.
Earlier this week, police rejected an application from organizers to facilitate the march, citing insufficient time to prepare a traffic management plan and potential crowd crush and disruptions.
Following the rejection of the application, the supreme court was required to decide if the protest should be considered as “authorized,” providing some legal protections to demonstrators.
The court ruling means protesters, while participating in the march, will have immunity from being charged under the summary offences act, which includes protection from offences like “obstructing” traffic.
However, police still have access to various powers to address anti-social behavior or other forms of offending, such as displaying prohibited symbols.
Justice Rigg acknowledged that while the demonstration may cause significant inconvenience to residents and individuals, this fact alone is not decisive.
Denying such groups the opportunity to demonstrate in an authorized public assembly could lead to resentment and alienation.
Justice Rigg also noted submissions from Josh Lees, a spokesperson for the Palestine Action Group, who stated that a demonstration on the iconic bridge would convey a strong and urgent message regarding the crisis in Gaza.
David Mejia-Canales, a senior lawyer at the Human Rights Law Centre, emphasized that the authorization does not grant individuals the ability to engage in all types and forms of activism.
Training for activists, instructions from organizers, and marshals will be crucial for those attending the protest.
In NSW, there is no authority to ban protests or deem them unlawful, as there is an implied right to freedom of political communication in the Australian Constitution.
The Palestinian Action Group’s lawyer, Felicity Graham, informed the court that the organizers would proceed with the demonstration regardless of the court’s decision.
Graham explained that her argument was not meant to threaten the court but to highlight that police had no choice and there was no evidence that prohibiting the protest would improve public safety.
Lees specified that the group was willing to postpone the protest by up to three weeks if the police were willing to collaborate with them.
The police’s barrister, Lachlan Gyles, contended that the request for authorization was unprecedented in terms of the risks, lack of preparation time, and the chosen location, which is one of the main arteries in one of the world’s largest cities.
Several NSW Labor MPs have defied their premier, Chris Minns, by vowing to participate in the march.
Fifteen NSW politicians, including Labor’s Stephen Lawrence, Anthony D’Adam, Lynda Voltz, Cameron Murphy, and Sarah Kaine, signed an open letter calling on the government to facilitate a safe and orderly event on Sunday.
