NSW Court Strikes Down Anti-Protest Law, Impacting Plans to Ban "Globalise the Intifada"

On April 16, 2026, New South Wales’ highest court invalidated an anti-protest law that had been enacted following the Bondi Beach terror attack, which resulted in 15 fatalities. The law, known as the Public Assembly Restriction Declaration (PARD), granted police the authority to restrict protests for up to three months after a terrorist incident. The court's ruling came after a constitutional challenge from three activist groups: the Blak Caucus, the Palestine Action Group, and Jews Against the Occupation ’48. The court found that the law impermissibly burdened the implied constitutional right to freedom of political communication, stating that protecting social cohesion could not justify such sweeping restrictions on protests.

The GuardianThe GuardianABC News AustraliaSolidarity Magazine

The ruling has significant implications for the Minns government, which had been considering a ban on the phrase "globalise the intifada," often used in pro-Palestinian demonstrations. Constitutional expert Anne Twomey advised caution, indicating that any future attempts to legislate against political slogans must be aimed at preventing violence rather than merely avoiding discomfort or distress among the public. The court emphasized that laws aimed at suppressing political expression due to its potentially divisive nature are not constitutionally valid.

The Guardian

The court's decision raises questions about the legal status of 26 protesters charged with various offenses during a rally against Israeli President Isaac Herzog in February. Legal representatives, including Majed Kheir, have suggested that the ruling could lead to the withdrawal of these charges, as the police may have acted beyond their constitutional powers. However, the complexity of the situation is underscored by the fact that some protesters were charged under laws that were in effect due to a major events declaration during Herzog's visit.

The Guardian

In light of the court's ruling, Premier Chris Minns faces pressure regarding his plans to ban "globalise the intifada." While he previously described the phrase as divisive and a call to violence, the court's decision has prompted him to reconsider the constitutional viability of such a ban. The government is currently monitoring similar legislation in Queensland, where a ban on "globalise the intifada" and "from the river to the sea" has been enacted.

The Guardian

Critics of the proposed ban, including legal experts and civil rights advocates, argue that any attempt to restrict political speech undermines democratic principles. The Palestine Action Group celebrated the court's decision as a significant victory for civil liberties, asserting that it affirms the right to protest and engage in political discourse without fear of repression.

The Guardian

• “Today we’ve had a really resounding win in the court of appeal to strike down Chris Minns’s latest batch of anti-protest laws as unconstitutional,” — Josh Lees, Spokesperson, Palestine Action Group

The Guardian

• “If what the government is trying to do is just to stop people being upset, or some sort of vague notion of social coherence, then under this judgment, that’s just not going to be sufficient to justify the law,” — Anne Twomey, Constitutional Expert

The Guardian

The court's ruling not only challenges the Minns government's approach to protest regulation but also sets a precedent for future legislation concerning political expression in New South Wales.

The Guardian