Sydney Protests and Police Powers: A Legal Minefield
A 69-year-traditional woman is planning to sue the state of New South Wales after allegedly suffering four broken vertebrae during a protest against Israeli President Isaac Herzog in Sydney. The case highlights a growing tension between the right to protest and increasingly restrictive laws governing public demonstrations, and raises questions about police accountability.
The Shadow of the Major Events Act
The woman’s lawyer, Peter O’Brien, argues that the state’s designation of Herzog’s visit as a “major event” under the 2009 Major Events Act is key to the legal challenge. Section 62 of the Act suggests that compensation may not be payable for actions taken by police during such events. However, O’Brien believes this doesn’t entirely preclude a claim for personal injury.
The government designated Herzog’s visit as a major event, with police even listed as the “promoter” and protesters labelled as “spectators” in a recent Supreme Court challenge. This designation is being contested as an improper attempt to curtail protest rights.
Escalating Legal Battles and Allegations of Brutality
At least seven protesters from Monday’s demonstration are seeking legal advice regarding alleged police brutality. Separate cases are emerging, including a man allegedly punched multiple times by officers – footage of which circulated on social media – and another alleging verbal abuse and physical assault during arrest. The Law Enforcement Conduct Commission (Lecc) has announced an investigation into “incidents of alleged misconduct”.
Lawyers are coordinating a legal response, gathering evidence and preparing to challenge the designation of the Herzog visit as a major event. They argue the legislation granting police additional powers is “inherently unlawful”.
The Limits of Police Discretion
Experts suggest that successfully prosecuting police officers for excessive force will be difficult. The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions must decide whether to lay charges, and the standard for proving unreasonable force is high. The court will assess each case based on the specific circumstances, considering factors like the behavior of the crowd and any perceived threat to officers.
The apply of the Major Events Act and a separate public assembly restriction declaration (Pard) – rushed through after a December incident – has given police “extremely broad discretion” to move people on, making it challenging to legally contest move-on directions.
A Controversial Designation
Legal professionals question the appropriateness of designating Herzog’s visit as a major event, given that the Act is intended for events of a “sporting, cultural or other nature,” and explicitly excludes protests. The decision was made by the minister for tourism, not the police minister, raising further questions about the intent behind the designation.
FAQ
- What is the Major Events Act? It’s a 2009 piece of legislation that allows the government to grant police additional powers during designated “major events.”
- Does this Act protect police from all liability? No, Section 62 restricts compensation claims, but not entirely, particularly in cases of personal injury.
- What are protesters planning to do? They are seeking legal advice and preparing to sue the state of New South Wales, challenging the designation of Herzog’s visit as a major event.
- Is it difficult to prosecute police for excessive force? Yes, it is. The standard of proof is high, and the decision to lay charges rests with the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Pro Tip: Document everything. If you are at a protest and experience or witness police misconduct, record video evidence (if safe to do so) and gather contact information from witnesses.
Stay informed, and engaged. Explore more articles on civil liberties and legal challenges to protest laws.
