Protester confident in fight against new police powers
A state's solicitor-general has defended controversial laws that grant police the power to move protesters on from places of worship if they are deemed to be disruptive.
Michael Sexton SC faced the NSW Supreme Court on Thursday on behalf of the state government amid a challenge to the validity of anti-protest laws implemented in February.
Josh Lees, on behalf of the Palestine Action Group, launched legal action over the new laws which he claims are very broad, undefined, and threaten the right to protest in NSW.
Mr Sexton said the powers were confined to protecting people who were being targeted by disruptive protesters when entering or leaving a place of worship.
He told the court it was "difficult" to imagine a situation in which the laws would be enacted without the provocation of protesters causing harassment, intimidation or fear.
The police powers had an "obvious and legitimate purpose" after being introduced in response to threats and attacks at places of worship around Australia, Mr Sexton said.
Rather than standing alone, he told the court the laws were meant to be read in conjunction with other legislation which would lend context and application tests.
Mr Lees' barrister Craig Lenehan SC accused the state government of attempting to have the judge perform "judicial surgery" because of their unclear construction of the law.
He said the law had not been tailored for purpose and didn't provide any clarity to either police or protesters about the reach of the powers or the definition of nearness.
Mr Lenehan took aim at the "legislative blunderbuss" which he said was "blasting away at an ill-defined mischief" and would likely have a chilling effect on protesting in NSW.
"Because of those vagaries, the upshot is that a person might just stay home," he told the court.
Mr Lees' legal team argued the laws allow police to direct protesters to desist, even in instances where there was no evidence a worshipper had been obstructed, harassed or was in fear.
That meant the laws had stretched police powers beyond their legitimate constitutional bounds, the court was told.
Mr Lenehan contended the laws were discriminatory because they expressly target certain types of political speech in a way that inevitably favoured some viewpoints over others.
Mr Sexton argued the validity of the laws wasn't affected by the fact there were exemptions for union rallies or for people in charge of places of worship to permit protests.
After the hearing, Mr Lees said he was "very confident" in securing a positive court outcome.
"These laws are unconstitutional because of how vaguely and broadly they're worded which threatens the right to protest," he said outside court.
"I think we can say very fairly that the government's legal representatives had no answer to that today."
Justice Anna Mitchelmore has reserved her decision.
The contested laws were introduced by the state Labor government after a spate of anti-Semitic attacks across the nation and amid concerns about rallies going past the Great Synagogue in the Sydney CBD.
Before their passage, Attorney-General Michael Daley said stronger penalties and boosted police powers would ensure people could practise their faith in safety.
"We believe these proposed reforms strike the right balance between protecting people of faith and the community's right to protest," he said.
But a rabbi and other progressive faith leaders at the time warned the extra restrictions would lead to the over-policing of peaceful protests, including those by faith communities.
A state's solicitor-general has defended controversial laws that grant police the power to move protesters on from places of worship if they are deemed to be disruptive.
Michael Sexton SC faced the NSW Supreme Court on Thursday on behalf of the state government amid a challenge to the validity of anti-protest laws implemented in February.
Josh Lees, on behalf of the Palestine Action Group, launched legal action over the new laws which he claims are very broad, undefined, and threaten the right to protest in NSW.
Mr Sexton said the powers were confined to protecting people who were being targeted by disruptive protesters when entering or leaving a place of worship.
He told the court it was "difficult" to imagine a situation in which the laws would be enacted without the provocation of protesters causing harassment, intimidation or fear.
The police powers had an "obvious and legitimate purpose" after being introduced in response to threats and attacks at places of worship around Australia, Mr Sexton said.
Rather than standing alone, he told the court the laws were meant to be read in conjunction with other legislation which would lend context and application tests.
Mr Lees' barrister Craig Lenehan SC accused the state government of attempting to have the judge perform "judicial surgery" because of their unclear construction of the law.
He said the law had not been tailored for purpose and didn't provide any clarity to either police or protesters about the reach of the powers or the definition of nearness.
Mr Lenehan took aim at the "legislative blunderbuss" which he said was "blasting away at an ill-defined mischief" and would likely have a chilling effect on protesting in NSW.
"Because of those vagaries, the upshot is that a person might just stay home," he told the court.
Mr Lees' legal team argued the laws allow police to direct protesters to desist, even in instances where there was no evidence a worshipper had been obstructed, harassed or was in fear.
That meant the laws had stretched police powers beyond their legitimate constitutional bounds, the court was told.
Mr Lenehan contended the laws were discriminatory because they expressly target certain types of political speech in a way that inevitably favoured some viewpoints over others.
Mr Sexton argued the validity of the laws wasn't affected by the fact there were exemptions for union rallies or for people in charge of places of worship to permit protests.
After the hearing, Mr Lees said he was "very confident" in securing a positive court outcome.
"These laws are unconstitutional because of how vaguely and broadly they're worded which threatens the right to protest," he said outside court.
"I think we can say very fairly that the government's legal representatives had no answer to that today."
Justice Anna Mitchelmore has reserved her decision.
The contested laws were introduced by the state Labor government after a spate of anti-Semitic attacks across the nation and amid concerns about rallies going past the Great Synagogue in the Sydney CBD.
Before their passage, Attorney-General Michael Daley said stronger penalties and boosted police powers would ensure people could practise their faith in safety.
"We believe these proposed reforms strike the right balance between protecting people of faith and the community's right to protest," he said.
But a rabbi and other progressive faith leaders at the time warned the extra restrictions would lead to the over-policing of peaceful protests, including those by faith communities.
A state's solicitor-general has defended controversial laws that grant police the power to move protesters on from places of worship if they are deemed to be disruptive.
Michael Sexton SC faced the NSW Supreme Court on Thursday on behalf of the state government amid a challenge to the validity of anti-protest laws implemented in February.
Josh Lees, on behalf of the Palestine Action Group, launched legal action over the new laws which he claims are very broad, undefined, and threaten the right to protest in NSW.
Mr Sexton said the powers were confined to protecting people who were being targeted by disruptive protesters when entering or leaving a place of worship.
He told the court it was "difficult" to imagine a situation in which the laws would be enacted without the provocation of protesters causing harassment, intimidation or fear.
The police powers had an "obvious and legitimate purpose" after being introduced in response to threats and attacks at places of worship around Australia, Mr Sexton said.
Rather than standing alone, he told the court the laws were meant to be read in conjunction with other legislation which would lend context and application tests.
Mr Lees' barrister Craig Lenehan SC accused the state government of attempting to have the judge perform "judicial surgery" because of their unclear construction of the law.
He said the law had not been tailored for purpose and didn't provide any clarity to either police or protesters about the reach of the powers or the definition of nearness.
Mr Lenehan took aim at the "legislative blunderbuss" which he said was "blasting away at an ill-defined mischief" and would likely have a chilling effect on protesting in NSW.
"Because of those vagaries, the upshot is that a person might just stay home," he told the court.
Mr Lees' legal team argued the laws allow police to direct protesters to desist, even in instances where there was no evidence a worshipper had been obstructed, harassed or was in fear.
That meant the laws had stretched police powers beyond their legitimate constitutional bounds, the court was told.
Mr Lenehan contended the laws were discriminatory because they expressly target certain types of political speech in a way that inevitably favoured some viewpoints over others.
Mr Sexton argued the validity of the laws wasn't affected by the fact there were exemptions for union rallies or for people in charge of places of worship to permit protests.
After the hearing, Mr Lees said he was "very confident" in securing a positive court outcome.
"These laws are unconstitutional because of how vaguely and broadly they're worded which threatens the right to protest," he said outside court.
"I think we can say very fairly that the government's legal representatives had no answer to that today."
Justice Anna Mitchelmore has reserved her decision.
The contested laws were introduced by the state Labor government after a spate of anti-Semitic attacks across the nation and amid concerns about rallies going past the Great Synagogue in the Sydney CBD.
Before their passage, Attorney-General Michael Daley said stronger penalties and boosted police powers would ensure people could practise their faith in safety.
"We believe these proposed reforms strike the right balance between protecting people of faith and the community's right to protest," he said.
But a rabbi and other progressive faith leaders at the time warned the extra restrictions would lead to the over-policing of peaceful protests, including those by faith communities.
A state's solicitor-general has defended controversial laws that grant police the power to move protesters on from places of worship if they are deemed to be disruptive.
Michael Sexton SC faced the NSW Supreme Court on Thursday on behalf of the state government amid a challenge to the validity of anti-protest laws implemented in February.
Josh Lees, on behalf of the Palestine Action Group, launched legal action over the new laws which he claims are very broad, undefined, and threaten the right to protest in NSW.
Mr Sexton said the powers were confined to protecting people who were being targeted by disruptive protesters when entering or leaving a place of worship.
He told the court it was "difficult" to imagine a situation in which the laws would be enacted without the provocation of protesters causing harassment, intimidation or fear.
The police powers had an "obvious and legitimate purpose" after being introduced in response to threats and attacks at places of worship around Australia, Mr Sexton said.
Rather than standing alone, he told the court the laws were meant to be read in conjunction with other legislation which would lend context and application tests.
Mr Lees' barrister Craig Lenehan SC accused the state government of attempting to have the judge perform "judicial surgery" because of their unclear construction of the law.
He said the law had not been tailored for purpose and didn't provide any clarity to either police or protesters about the reach of the powers or the definition of nearness.
Mr Lenehan took aim at the "legislative blunderbuss" which he said was "blasting away at an ill-defined mischief" and would likely have a chilling effect on protesting in NSW.
"Because of those vagaries, the upshot is that a person might just stay home," he told the court.
Mr Lees' legal team argued the laws allow police to direct protesters to desist, even in instances where there was no evidence a worshipper had been obstructed, harassed or was in fear.
That meant the laws had stretched police powers beyond their legitimate constitutional bounds, the court was told.
Mr Lenehan contended the laws were discriminatory because they expressly target certain types of political speech in a way that inevitably favoured some viewpoints over others.
Mr Sexton argued the validity of the laws wasn't affected by the fact there were exemptions for union rallies or for people in charge of places of worship to permit protests.
After the hearing, Mr Lees said he was "very confident" in securing a positive court outcome.
"These laws are unconstitutional because of how vaguely and broadly they're worded which threatens the right to protest," he said outside court.
"I think we can say very fairly that the government's legal representatives had no answer to that today."
Justice Anna Mitchelmore has reserved her decision.
The contested laws were introduced by the state Labor government after a spate of anti-Semitic attacks across the nation and amid concerns about rallies going past the Great Synagogue in the Sydney CBD.
Before their passage, Attorney-General Michael Daley said stronger penalties and boosted police powers would ensure people could practise their faith in safety.
"We believe these proposed reforms strike the right balance between protecting people of faith and the community's right to protest," he said.
But a rabbi and other progressive faith leaders at the time warned the extra restrictions would lead to the over-policing of peaceful protests, including those by faith communities.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mercury
2 hours ago
- Mercury
Labor's plan for night-time economy zones
Don't miss out on the headlines from Tasmania. Followed categories will be added to My News. A Salamanca bar manager has thrown his support behind Labor's plan for night-time economy zones saying they will create jobs and attract young people. Daniel Conway of The Pavilion said restrictions were costing the hospitality sector and venues' takings were down between 20 and 50 per cent on 12 months ago. 'We need to draw people back out, bring them back down to Salamanca and just create a massive culture and just an environment with something for them to do in a fun and safe environment,' he said. 'It is all about growth. Growth equals more jobs, more opportunities. 'It's everything from creating more businesses, pop-ups, entrepreneurship, everything that can make hospitality fun again. 'We should be leaders in tourism and hospitality.' Mr Conway said by having a night-time economy zone in Salamanca it would create activities for young people to enjoy and encourage talented musicians. Labor candidate for Franklin, Amelia Meyers, 19, said with the closure of the Uni Bar many young people were looking at other places to visit at night. 'A lot of us do end up drinking with our friends in the uni accommodation just because it's a bit cheaper and a bit easier, but also there hasn't been as much going on in town and especially in Salamanca,' Ms Meyers said. 'A lot of other states and territories have had a better nightlife than what Hobart has seen.' Labor leader Dean Winter is basing his night-time economy zones on NSW and said concerns of Hobart Lord Mayor Anna Reynolds 'can be overcome'. 'This is a business that had to battle to put TVs outside. This is an area where you still can't have a full band play outdoors despite it being Tasmania's biggest nightlife precinct,' he said. 'We need to have a state government that is going to drive change within local government so we can have a vibrant hospitality sector and a night time economy that's fun and safe. 'This strategy will help revitalise Tasmania's nightlife and contribute to my vision of making our state the easiest place in Australia to do business.' Mr Winter said his bold plan for a night life revival would start in Salamanca and be expanded to Launceston and Devonport. 'Salamanca's markets are iconic in the day time. I see an opportunity to make the precinct iconic in the night time too,' he said. 'What we've seen in our cities over the course of the last few years is businesses that have been curtailed by a red tape from local councils. 'We need to help young people see a future here, and make them want to stay. Our plan is for more housing, well-paid jobs and a night life that is thriving.' Labor also wants to modernise the 35-year-old Liquor Licensing Act and introduce a simplified, low-cost liquor licence for small businesses, pop-up events, and food trucks. Premier Jeremy Rockliff said he had been working with the Tasmanian Hospitality Association on a range of measures to free up red tape to support the hospitality industry.
Sky News AU
4 hours ago
- Sky News AU
JD Vance accuses Gavin Newsom of inciting riots and endangering law enforcement
US Vice President JD Vance has accused California Governor Gavin Newsom of endangering law enforcement during his trip to Los Angeles. This comes after the anti-ICE protests in the city, and Mr Vance stressed the need for soldiers on the ground if the situation worsens. 'Gavin Newsom and Karen Bass, by treating this city as a sanctuary city, have basically said that it is open season on federal law enforcement,' Mr Vance said.
The Advertiser
9 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Trump says possible Harvard deal 'good for the country'
US President Donald Trump appears to be softening in his campaign against Harvard, saying his administration could soon announce a 'deal' with the country's oldest and richest university. In a post on his social media platform Truth Social, Trump raised the prospect of a truce with the Ivy League school, which has sued after his administration terminated billions of dollars in grants awarded to Harvard and moved to bar the school from admitting international students. The Republican president's administration has said its actions against Harvard are justified based on a litany of allegations, including that the institution was not doing enough to combat anti-semitic harassment on campus. Trump said his administration is addressing "improprieties" at Harvard. He said individuals at Harvard "have acted extremely appropriately during negotiations, and appear to be committed to doing what is right." "If a Settlement is made on the basis that is currently being discussed, it will be 'mindbogglingly' HISTORIC, and very good for our Country," Trump wrote. He made the statement shortly after a federal judge in Boston issued an injunction blocking the US Department of Homeland Security from immediately revoking Harvard's ability to enrol international students. That injunction prevents the US Department of Homeland Security from revoking Harvard's certification in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program without first going through a months-long administrative process, which it now plans to do. Harvard had no immediate comment on Trump's post, but in a statement it welcomed US District Judge Allison Burroughs' order, adding it "will continue to defend its rights—and the rights of its students and scholars." Massachusetts-based Harvard has filed two lawsuits seeking to unfreeze around $2.5 billion in funding and to prevent the administration from blocking the ability of international students to attend the university. Harvard alleges that Trump has been retaliating against it, violating its free speech rights under the US Constitution's First Amendment, because it refused to accede to the administration's demands to control the school's governance, curriculum and the ideology of its faculty and students. Burroughs is expected to rule in the coming days on Harvard's related request that she continue blocking implementation of a proclamation Trump signed barring foreign nationals from entering the US to study at the university. International students comprise about a quarter of its student body. US President Donald Trump appears to be softening in his campaign against Harvard, saying his administration could soon announce a 'deal' with the country's oldest and richest university. In a post on his social media platform Truth Social, Trump raised the prospect of a truce with the Ivy League school, which has sued after his administration terminated billions of dollars in grants awarded to Harvard and moved to bar the school from admitting international students. The Republican president's administration has said its actions against Harvard are justified based on a litany of allegations, including that the institution was not doing enough to combat anti-semitic harassment on campus. Trump said his administration is addressing "improprieties" at Harvard. He said individuals at Harvard "have acted extremely appropriately during negotiations, and appear to be committed to doing what is right." "If a Settlement is made on the basis that is currently being discussed, it will be 'mindbogglingly' HISTORIC, and very good for our Country," Trump wrote. He made the statement shortly after a federal judge in Boston issued an injunction blocking the US Department of Homeland Security from immediately revoking Harvard's ability to enrol international students. That injunction prevents the US Department of Homeland Security from revoking Harvard's certification in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program without first going through a months-long administrative process, which it now plans to do. Harvard had no immediate comment on Trump's post, but in a statement it welcomed US District Judge Allison Burroughs' order, adding it "will continue to defend its rights—and the rights of its students and scholars." Massachusetts-based Harvard has filed two lawsuits seeking to unfreeze around $2.5 billion in funding and to prevent the administration from blocking the ability of international students to attend the university. Harvard alleges that Trump has been retaliating against it, violating its free speech rights under the US Constitution's First Amendment, because it refused to accede to the administration's demands to control the school's governance, curriculum and the ideology of its faculty and students. Burroughs is expected to rule in the coming days on Harvard's related request that she continue blocking implementation of a proclamation Trump signed barring foreign nationals from entering the US to study at the university. International students comprise about a quarter of its student body. US President Donald Trump appears to be softening in his campaign against Harvard, saying his administration could soon announce a 'deal' with the country's oldest and richest university. In a post on his social media platform Truth Social, Trump raised the prospect of a truce with the Ivy League school, which has sued after his administration terminated billions of dollars in grants awarded to Harvard and moved to bar the school from admitting international students. The Republican president's administration has said its actions against Harvard are justified based on a litany of allegations, including that the institution was not doing enough to combat anti-semitic harassment on campus. Trump said his administration is addressing "improprieties" at Harvard. He said individuals at Harvard "have acted extremely appropriately during negotiations, and appear to be committed to doing what is right." "If a Settlement is made on the basis that is currently being discussed, it will be 'mindbogglingly' HISTORIC, and very good for our Country," Trump wrote. He made the statement shortly after a federal judge in Boston issued an injunction blocking the US Department of Homeland Security from immediately revoking Harvard's ability to enrol international students. That injunction prevents the US Department of Homeland Security from revoking Harvard's certification in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program without first going through a months-long administrative process, which it now plans to do. Harvard had no immediate comment on Trump's post, but in a statement it welcomed US District Judge Allison Burroughs' order, adding it "will continue to defend its rights—and the rights of its students and scholars." Massachusetts-based Harvard has filed two lawsuits seeking to unfreeze around $2.5 billion in funding and to prevent the administration from blocking the ability of international students to attend the university. Harvard alleges that Trump has been retaliating against it, violating its free speech rights under the US Constitution's First Amendment, because it refused to accede to the administration's demands to control the school's governance, curriculum and the ideology of its faculty and students. Burroughs is expected to rule in the coming days on Harvard's related request that she continue blocking implementation of a proclamation Trump signed barring foreign nationals from entering the US to study at the university. International students comprise about a quarter of its student body. US President Donald Trump appears to be softening in his campaign against Harvard, saying his administration could soon announce a 'deal' with the country's oldest and richest university. In a post on his social media platform Truth Social, Trump raised the prospect of a truce with the Ivy League school, which has sued after his administration terminated billions of dollars in grants awarded to Harvard and moved to bar the school from admitting international students. The Republican president's administration has said its actions against Harvard are justified based on a litany of allegations, including that the institution was not doing enough to combat anti-semitic harassment on campus. Trump said his administration is addressing "improprieties" at Harvard. He said individuals at Harvard "have acted extremely appropriately during negotiations, and appear to be committed to doing what is right." "If a Settlement is made on the basis that is currently being discussed, it will be 'mindbogglingly' HISTORIC, and very good for our Country," Trump wrote. He made the statement shortly after a federal judge in Boston issued an injunction blocking the US Department of Homeland Security from immediately revoking Harvard's ability to enrol international students. That injunction prevents the US Department of Homeland Security from revoking Harvard's certification in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program without first going through a months-long administrative process, which it now plans to do. Harvard had no immediate comment on Trump's post, but in a statement it welcomed US District Judge Allison Burroughs' order, adding it "will continue to defend its rights—and the rights of its students and scholars." Massachusetts-based Harvard has filed two lawsuits seeking to unfreeze around $2.5 billion in funding and to prevent the administration from blocking the ability of international students to attend the university. Harvard alleges that Trump has been retaliating against it, violating its free speech rights under the US Constitution's First Amendment, because it refused to accede to the administration's demands to control the school's governance, curriculum and the ideology of its faculty and students. Burroughs is expected to rule in the coming days on Harvard's related request that she continue blocking implementation of a proclamation Trump signed barring foreign nationals from entering the US to study at the university. International students comprise about a quarter of its student body.
