In a major legal triumph for civil liberties, the New South Wales Supreme Court has ruled in favour of our client, Josh Lees. The court declared that the recent protest law amendments by the NSW Government were unconstitutional.
This case, led by O’Brien Criminal & Civil Solicitors on behalf of the Palestine Action Group, affirms the right to protest as a cornerstone of Australian democracy.
Case Summary: Josh Lees
Josh Lees, a prominent protest organiser, challenged amendments to the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act (LEPRA) introduced by the Minns Government in February 2025. These amendments gave police sweeping powers to remove or arrest protestors near places of worship, even where no disturbance or threat existed.
In a groundbreaking decision, Justice Anna Mitchelmore ruled the laws invalid, finding they imposed an unjustified burden on the implied constitutional freedom of political communication.
This case sends a clear message: in a democracy, dissent is not a threat, it is a right.
A Closer Look: The Fight to Protect Protest Rights
The case stemmed from a political protest outside Sydney’s Great Synagogue. While the protest was portrayed as threatening religious freedoms, the event was in fact political, featuring a speaker from the Israel Defense Forces. The government’s rushed legislation blurred the lines between religious protection and political suppression, criminalising peaceful dissent under the guise of safety.
In court, Lees’ legal team argued that the amendments created an unconstitutional chilling effect on protest activity. Lenehan highlighted the law’s vague terminology, especially the undefined use of “near”, which left protesters vulnerable to arbitrary police action.
A pivotal moment came when it was revealed that the Dural caravan incident, cited by the government as justification for the laws, was a hoax. This undermined the government’s position, raising concerns that the legislation was politically motivated rather than based on genuine public safety needs.
Peter O’Brien spoke on the issue, declaring:
“ I can say on behalf of all people who respect and understand it’s a fundamental part of our existence in Australian democracy, that this is a win for democracy and it’s a win for the ability to dissent by way of public assembly and protest.
It settles clearly that the government cannot insert arbitrary, ill thought out amendments into legislation which might water down the very foundational bedrock of what a community and what a democracy is all about.
And that is understanding and appreciating the right to protest, and that is what this government has failed to do in this instance. And that is why this is such a significant landmark decision. It protects and it promotes the right to protest. It protects and it promotes the rights of the implied right to political communication in this country.”
Sidnie Sarang, our top criminal solicitor handling the case, explained:
“As lawyers in this profession, who stand for human rights and democracy, we have all been watching the creeping attempts by misguided individuals in political power to restrict our democratic freedoms, for whatever veiled purpose and ulterior motive. The ruling today is a reminder that our democracy in Australia, does not bend to haphazard legislation rushed under the cloak of the night. Chris Minns forgot one thing, our Constitution does not sleep.
Today, the Constitution woke up and spoke back. The right to protest is not just a privilege, it is a constitutional cornerstone. Today’s win proves the law can still protect those who dare speak up against injustices. The Supreme Court has reaffirmed what the current oppositional government keeps forgetting, protest is not a crime, no matter where it happens to be occurring near to on a map in the Sydney CBD, and beyond. We are not a police state. You cannot criminalise conscience, and democracy is not built on silence, the right to protest is not a threat, it is a collective pulse.”
Public and political support swelled around the case, with civil liberties groups, political figures, and community organisations voicing support for the legal challenge. As the case unfolded, it prompted a parliamentary inquiry into the government’s legislative process and motives.
Josh Lees Case Outcome
Justice Mitchelmore ruled the amendments to LEPRA invalid, declaring them an unconstitutional restriction on political communication. The decision is now a touchstone for protest rights in Australia, reinforcing the legal protections that prevent governments from silencing dissent under the cloak of public order.
Need Legal Help After a Protest?
Contact us today for a confidential consultation and take the first step towards resolution.
Call (02) 9261 4281
Email
Or enquire online for a confidential consultation.
*We usually keep our client’s name private in our case studies, but as this case was in the media and of public interest, we had permission to share Lees name in this instance.
