Minns Defends ‘Rational’ Anti‑Protest Law Despite Unconstitutional Ruling

The NSW Court of Appeal recently declared a government-introduced anti-protest law unconstitutional. This significant ruling found the legislation granted police broad power to restrict public marches, determining that restricting all protests to protect "social cohesion" was not a constitutionally legitimate purpose for such a broad prohibition. This law had been established in the aftermath of a major terrorist attack.

Following the court's decision, Premier Chris Minns publicly described the anti-protest law as "rational" and "proportionate." He argued the government pursued these changes after the Bondi attack to address what he termed "violent confrontations" and "hateful, hateful phrases via loudspeakers on Sydney streets" that occurred in the preceding two years.

Greens Justice spokesperson Sue Higginson responded directly to Minns' comments. She stated the Premier had launched an "extraordinary attack" on the independent judiciary, suggesting a challenge to the fundamental separation of powers between the executive and the courts.

The court's judgment represents a landmark decision, challenging the legal basis for future government attempts to restrict public assembly based on broad concepts like social cohesion. Legal experts suggest it could limit governmental power to control speech and protest. Minns' defense, however, signals ongoing governmental commitment to protest management and public order policies.

The ruling has immediate consequences for individuals charged under the invalidated law. Police are currently reviewing charges against protesters, particularly those related to a February anti-Herzog rally where the law was in force. This review could impact numerous legal cases, as the core legislation underpinning some arrests no longer holds constitutional validity.

Future developments will show how the NSW government adapts its approach to public order legislation following this judicial review and what impact this landmark ruling has on protest rights and the balance of powers in the state.