The right to protest has never been more contested in New South Wales. In the space of just three months, the NSW Government has passed significant new counter-terrorism legislation containing protest-related restrictions, police have clashed with demonstrators in the Sydney CBD, a constitutional challenge is now before the NSW Supreme Court, and a separate set of protest restrictions has already been struck down as unconstitutional.
If you’ve been asking yourself what you’re actually allowed to do at a protest in NSW right now, you’re not alone. The legal landscape is shifting rapidly, and the answers matter.
At O’Brien Criminal & Civil Solicitors, we have been at the centre of this fight. We are currently representing clients in legal proceedings challenging these laws. This guide explains what’s happened, where things stand, and what your rights are.
Read our winning criminal case studies.
How Did We Get Here? A Timeline of Events
December 2025: New Laws After Bondi
On 24 December 2025, in the early hours of Christmas Eve, the NSW Parliament passed the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 in an emergency session. The legislation cleared the Legislative Council 18 votes to 8. It was introduced in the immediate aftermath of the devastating Bondi Beach terror attack.
The omnibus bill contained several elements: tougher gun regulations, expanded hate speech offences, and a new mechanism that gave police significant powers to restrict public assembly within declared areas following a terrorism declaration. This last element, the creation of “Public Assembly Restriction Declarations,” or PARDs, is what has proven most legally and politically controversial.
Under a PARD, the Police Commissioner can restrict authorised public assembly within a declared area for an initial period of 14 days, extendable in 14-day blocks up to a maximum of 90 days. Within those declared areas, no protest can obtain lawful “authorised” status under the Summary Offences Act 1988, not even by court order.
Within hours of the laws passing on Christmas Eve, Police Commissioner Mal Lanyon issued declarations across the South West Metropolitan, North West Metropolitan, and Central Metropolitan policing areas, covering large parts of Sydney. On 7 January 2026, he approved a further 14-day extension.
The NSW Council for Civil Liberties labelled the laws “draconian.” The Aboriginal Legal Service raised serious concerns about the impact on Invasion Day/Survival Day protests on 26 January, and rallies marking the anniversary of the death in custody of David Dungay Jr. Former NSW Supreme Court judge Anthony Whealy, who presided over Australia’s largest terrorism trial, said the legislation could be liable to challenges on multiple grounds.
February 2026: The Herzog Protests and Allegations of Police Violence
On 9 February 2026, around 10,000 people gathered in Sydney to protest the visit of Israeli President Isaac Herzog. What followed has become one of the most serious recent flashpoints for civil liberties debate in NSW.
Videos spread widely on social media, which civil liberties groups and media organisations described as appearing to show NSW Police officers using significant force against protesters, including the use of pepper spray, police on horseback moving into crowds, and officers surrounding demonstrators before advancing. At least 27 people were arrested. Expert observers and civil liberties groups described what they characterised as “kettling”, a crowd-control technique that surrounds protesters and restricts their ability to disperse.
NSW Police Assistant Commissioner Peter McKenna said police actions were “justified” and stated he was “very proud” of their conduct. Premier Chris Minns defended the approach, stating that the powers would only be used sparingly.
The Minns Government had designated the Herzog visit a “major event” under the Major Events Act 2009, enabling special event zones and enhanced police powers with fines of up to $5,500 for non-compliance. A fast-tracked legal challenge by the Palestine Action Group was heard and dismissed — a decision later analysed by Mitry Lawyers in their review of Lees v State of NSW [2026] NSWSC 58, citing public safety concerns in the aftermath of the Bondi attack.
Amnesty International Australia condemned what it described as “unnecessary and disproportionate use of force,” noting that First Nations people, Muslim worshippers and leaders, and elderly protesters were among those subjected to force. Greens MP Sue Higginson called for criminal assault charges to be laid against police officers.
Late February 2026: The Constitutional Challenge
The PARD lapsed on 17 February 2026. But the legal fight has continued. A coalition of community justice groups — including the Palestine Action Group, Blak Caucus, and Jews Against the Occupation ’48, have launched a constitutional challenge in the NSW Supreme Court in the case of Jarrett & Ors v State of New South Wales (2026/00007005). The hearing before the Supreme Court was held on 26 February 2026, with a decision anticipated in the coming months.
The case argues that the PARD scheme unlawfully infringes the implied freedom of political communication guaranteed by the Australian Constitution. As lead litigant Elizabeth Jarrett, a proud Gumbaynggirr, Dhungutti and Bundjalung woman, told a press conference outside NSW Parliament: “We say enough brutality, enough intimidation, enough pretending that policing equals justice.”
A Win for Protesters: The Earlier Supreme Court Ruling
Critically, a separate set of NSW protest-related laws has already been struck down. In October 2025, the NSW Supreme Court ruled in Lees v State of New South Wales [2025] NSWSC 1209 that provisions in the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (LEPRA) — specifically those introduced by the Crimes Amendment (Places of Worship) Act 2025 restricting demonstrations near places of worship — were unconstitutional.
Justice Anna Mitchelmore held that the provision “impermissibly burdened the implied constitutional freedom of communication on government or political matters.” The Court found that the law, which allowed police to direct protesters “in or near a place of worship,” was broader than necessary. It applied even when a protest was not directed at or related to the place of worship at all, and common Sydney protest routes naturally pass near churches, mosques, synagogues, and temples.
Justice Mitchelmore recognised that protest can involve disruption, noise, assembly, and mobilising public awareness, and that the burden the law placed on political communication in those circumstances was not justified. The ruling does not establish that all disruption is constitutionally protected, but it does make clear that the law had gone further than the Constitution permits.
The Human Rights Law Centre hailed the ruling as a significant victory. Premier Minns described it as “disappointing.”
While Lees concerned different legislation from the PARD scheme now being challenged in Jarrett, it is relevant context. It demonstrates that NSW courts are prepared to strike down protest-related laws where they go beyond what is reasonably necessary — and the Jarrett challenge raises similar constitutional arguments.
Your Rights at a Protest in NSW: The Essentials
Despite all the legislative turbulence, you do have rights. Understanding them is essential before you attend any protest. For a more detailed breakdown, see our full guide to protest rights in NSW.
Your constitutional protection. The High Court has recognised an implied freedom of political communication in the Australian Constitution. This is not a personal right you can directly enforce like a right in a bill of rights — but it operates as a constraint on government legislation. Laws that impermissibly burden free political communication can be struck down, as has happened in NSW in relation to protest laws.
The Form 1 system. Under Part 4 of the Summary Offences Act 1988, protest organisers can notify police of an intended public assembly by lodging what is commonly known as a “Form 1.” This does not grant permission to protest — it provides a degree of legal protection. Attending a protest that has been properly notified generally reduces your exposure to certain charges. However, police have been opposing these applications in court, and the Minns Government attempted to use exclusion zones to block protests at the Port of Newcastle (which was struck down by the Supreme Court).
Move-on directions. Police in NSW have broad powers under LEPRA to issue move-on directions. If you are given a move-on direction, you are legally required to comply, even if you believe the direction is unlawful. You should comply and challenge the direction later. Failing to comply can result in arrest and charges.
What you can be charged with. Even at peaceful protests, you may face a range of charges. These include obstruction of a public place, obstruction of traffic, failure to comply with a move-on direction, affray, and unlawful assembly. Separately, certain protest-specific offences — such as those relating to critical infrastructure under the Roads Act and related legislation — carry maximum penalties of up to two years’ imprisonment or fines of up to $22,000. Not all of the offences you may encounter carry those maximum penalties; the applicable maximum will depend on the specific charge.
If you are arrested. Police must identify themselves when arresting you and must inform you of the reason for your arrest. You have the right to remain silent. You should calmly ask to speak to a lawyer before answering any questions.
Removing face coverings. The December 2025 legislation introduced new powers allowing police to direct a person to remove a face covering in certain protest or assembly contexts. The threshold and precise conditions are technical, and this is an area where legal advice specific to your situation is important.
Terrorist organisation symbols. The December 2025 legislation introduced an offence of publicly displaying a “prohibited terrorist organisation symbol,” punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment. This is a terrorism-specific law, not a protest law as such, but it can apply in a protest context. Civil liberties groups have warned it may have a chilling effect on lawful political expression.
If Police Used Excessive Force Against You
The events of 9 February 2026 have shone a harsh spotlight on police conduct during protests. If you believe police used excessive or unlawful force against you, you may have grounds for civil action.
O’Brien Criminal & Civil Solicitors specialises in civil proceedings against police for false arrest, unlawful imprisonment, assault, and misconduct. We operate on a no win, no fee basis for appropriate civil claims against police. The question of whether force was proportionate and lawful is one our team is well equipped to assess.
It is important to act promptly. You should document your injuries, preserve any video footage, and seek legal advice as soon as possible. Limitation periods apply to civil claims.
What Happens Next?
The constitutional challenge in Jarrett v State of New South Wales is now before the courts, with a decision expected later in 2026. That decision could ultimately make its way to the High Court, where the boundaries of the right to protest across Australia could be significantly shaped for years to come.
In the meantime, the PARD scheme remains on the statute books. There is nothing preventing the Police Commissioner from issuing a fresh declaration if another terrorism event is declared. Commissioner Lanyon has not ruled this out.
The question of where the line sits between legitimate public safety measures and the unconstitutional suppression of political speech has never been more pressing in this state.
We’re Fighting for Your Rights
O’Brien Criminal & Civil Solicitors has been at the forefront of challenging these laws in court. We are proud to represent clients in proceedings against the State and to stand up for the fundamental democratic right to protest.
If you have been arrested, charged, or subjected to excessive force at a protest in NSW, contact us today for a free, confidential consultation.
Call: 02 9261 4281 Email:
This article provides general legal information only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have been arrested or charged, you should seek advice specific to your situation.
O’Brien Criminal & Civil Solicitors | Sydney CBD | Serving clients across NSW and Australia-wide
Sidnie Sarang is a multi-faceted lawyer who is passionate about justice. Sidnie practices across criminal defence law, fair trading, and commissions of inquiry including crime commissions and royal commissions.
