NSW's top court struck down an anti‑protest law. The decision removes a power police used after the Bondi attack.
What the PARD did
The public assembly restriction declaration, or PARD, banned the usual notice‑of‑intention system known as form 1 in zones designated by police for up to three months after a terrorist incident.
That meant organisers risked arrest if they tried to march without the police's permission. It changed how protests could be organised and carried out.
The measure was introduced after the Bondi beach terror attack that left 15 people dead. Police used the power across parts of Sydney’s central business district when tens of thousands gathered during the visit of Israeli president Isaac Herzog in early February, a demonstration that later became the subject of a police watchdog inquiry.
The legal challenge and ruling
Three activist groups — the Blak Caucus, the Palestine Action Group and Jews Against the Occupation '48 — launched a constitutional challenge in January, arguing the law impermissibly limited political communication.
The full bench of the New South Wales Court of Appeal — Chief Justice Andrew Bell, Justice Julie Ward and Justice Stephen Free — unanimously found the PARD scheme invalid. "The PARD scheme is a blunt tool," the judges wrote, noting it didn't allow consideration of the purpose, character or conduct of any particular assembly or the specific nature of any threat.
The court held the law burdened the implied constitutional right to freedom of communication on government and political matters. That test is grounded in Australian jurisprudence that treats representative government and public discussion as essential to the Constitution. The judges noted the scheme would even cover assemblies aimed at social cohesion — a paradox they relied on in reaching their decision.
This is the second ruling in six months against a Minns government protest law, a legal blow that will complicate the administration's policing and public-safety agenda.
Police, prosecutions and watchdog scrutiny
Police commissioner Mal Lanyon had put the PARD in place and extended it repeatedly over the summer, then lifted the restriction after President Herzog left Australia. Charges were then laid against 26 people in relation to the sometimes chaotic February rally.
Greens justice spokesperson Sue Higginson said outside court that the ruling raises fresh questions for the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission (LECC), which is investigating alleged police misconduct during the protest. "The idea that the police responded with the violence they did is an enormous problem in and of itself," Higginson said, adding that the fact police acted under what she described as unconstitutional laws would change the focus of the watchdog's inquiry.
Authorities haven't yet announced whether the crown will drop the charges or alter prosecutions given the ruling. The court's decision, however, makes the legal standing of actions taken by police while the PARD was in force.
Political cost for the Minns government
The judgement is a material setback for Premier Chris Minns’s government. It undercuts an election‑period emphasis on tougher powers for policing and public safety that the state executive said would reassure the public after the Bondi killings.
That calculation now looks shaky. Critics will argue the government rushed in broad measures that failed basic legal tests, while supporters will say the intent — to protect safety after an atrocity — was clear. Balancing those two positions will play out in parliament and public debate.
The state will face direct bills for the Court of Appeal litigation and any follow-up legal action from the LECC investigation.
Politically, the government may lose credibility for having backed broad powers that courts reject.
Broader legal implications
The court's reasoning reinforces a principle that any blanket restriction on public assembly must be narrowly tailored. The judges said PARD failed to consider the purpose or conduct of specific assemblies or the actual seriousness of any threat, turning what could have been a targeted safety measure into a broad limit on political expression.
For civil liberties groups the ruling is a vindication. For police commanders it's a reminder that operational urgency after an attack doesn't remove the need for laws to meet constitutional tests. The result is likely to influence future drafting of emergency measures — not just in New South Wales but around Australia.
International and UK context
Australia's constitutional framework — with its implied freedom of political communication — differs from Britain's, where parliamentary sovereignty and statutory human rights protections set the bounds for protest regulation. Debates about balancing public safety and protest rights are common internationally and this ruling feeds into that wider discussion.
British lawmakers and rights groups have recently wrangled over policing powers and public order; lessons from Sydney's experience will be of interest when policymakers examine the scope and limits of emergency restrictions. Democracies considering emergency security powers should avoid blanket clauses that can't be tailored to particular events.
Practically, the ruling highlights the risks politicians face when laws are rushed through without careful legal drafting. Governments, whether in Australia or Britain, face the problem of responding swiftly to tragedy while keeping measures legally robust. How that trade‑off is resolved will shape public trust in both policing and politics.
What happens next
The immediate legal effect is that the PARD regime no longer stands as valid law. That leaves open questions about prosecutions and administrative acts taken while PARD was active. Higginson has called for charges against the 26 defendants to be reconsidered; the LECC must also factor the court's findings into its ongoing inquiry.
Politically, lawyers expect fresh rounds of debate in the New South Wales parliament over the scope of protest regulation and how to legislate for emergencies without trampling core democratic freedoms. The Minns government may return with a reworked bill. Or it may retreat; either option creates headlines and votes.
And for protesters and rights lawyers, the decision provides an immediate legal precedent they can cite in future challenges.
Related Articles
"The PARD scheme is a blunt tool," the full bench — Chief Justice Andrew Bell, Justice Julie Ward and Justice Stephen Free — wrote in their judgment.
This article was created with AI assistance.
