Search Results
8/2/2025, 11:40:05 PM
>Rigg said the fact the demonstration was likely to cause significant inconvenience to residents and others “is far from determinative”.
>“If matters such as this were to be determinative, no assembly involving inconvenience would be permitted,” she said.
>“To deprive such groups the opportunity to demonstrate in an authorised public assembly would inevitably lead to resentment and alienation.”
>Rigg noted submissions from Palestine Action Group’s spokesperson, Josh Lees, who told the court a demonstration on the iconic bridge would send an “an urgent and massive response” to the crisis in Gaza.
>“The public interest in freedom of expression, at this time, in the manner contemplated, for the reasons advanced, is very high,” Rigg said.
>Rigg rejected any suggestion that her decision would condone any anti-social behaviour or violence at the demonstration or “ambulances not getting to hospital on time”.
>The court ruling means protesters will have immunity from being charged under the summary offences act. This includes protection from offences like “obstructing” traffic – crucial in this particular protest.
>However, police will still have access to a range of other powers to stem so-called “anti-social behaviour” or other types of offending. This includes showing prohibited symbols.
>David Mejia-Canales, a senior lawyer at the Human Rights Law Centre, said the authorisation “doesn’t give people the ability to engage in all types and all forms of activism”.
>“It’s really important for people who do attend that they follow the directions of organisers and marshals.”
>There is no authority to ban protest or deem it unlawful in NSW. This is because while there is no express right to protest in the state, it is covered in common law and by the Australian constitution, which the high court has found implies the right to freedom of political communication.
>“If matters such as this were to be determinative, no assembly involving inconvenience would be permitted,” she said.
>“To deprive such groups the opportunity to demonstrate in an authorised public assembly would inevitably lead to resentment and alienation.”
>Rigg noted submissions from Palestine Action Group’s spokesperson, Josh Lees, who told the court a demonstration on the iconic bridge would send an “an urgent and massive response” to the crisis in Gaza.
>“The public interest in freedom of expression, at this time, in the manner contemplated, for the reasons advanced, is very high,” Rigg said.
>Rigg rejected any suggestion that her decision would condone any anti-social behaviour or violence at the demonstration or “ambulances not getting to hospital on time”.
>The court ruling means protesters will have immunity from being charged under the summary offences act. This includes protection from offences like “obstructing” traffic – crucial in this particular protest.
>However, police will still have access to a range of other powers to stem so-called “anti-social behaviour” or other types of offending. This includes showing prohibited symbols.
>David Mejia-Canales, a senior lawyer at the Human Rights Law Centre, said the authorisation “doesn’t give people the ability to engage in all types and all forms of activism”.
>“It’s really important for people who do attend that they follow the directions of organisers and marshals.”
>There is no authority to ban protest or deem it unlawful in NSW. This is because while there is no express right to protest in the state, it is covered in common law and by the Australian constitution, which the high court has found implies the right to freedom of political communication.
Page 1