NSW’s highest court strikes down anti-protest law introduced in wake of Bondi beach terror attack

Thank God

Anyone else sick of these protests?

Good now charge the cops that attacked protesters

Two big looses in a day.

Someone call in a welfare check.

Wow, some good news for once!

Nice try Minnge

Here is the [judgment](https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/19d9354aeb610427262d9102)

And this is from the formal Headnote (the TL;DR)

# HEADNOTE

**[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]**

In the wake of the terrorist attack at Bondi Beach on 14 December 2025 the State government enacted the *Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2025* (NSW) (***Amending Act***). The *Amending Act* introduced a number of amendments to the *Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002* (NSW) (***TPP Act***), the *Summary Offences Act 1988* (NSW) (***Summary Offences Act***) and the *Law* *Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002* (NSW) (***LEPRA***) concerning the conduct of public assemblies.

**The Court held** (Bell CJ, Ward P and Free JA), **declaring the impugned provisions invalid:**

*As to the implied freedom of political communication*

1. The power of the State parliament to pass laws that restrict communication on governmental or political matters is subject to a fundamental limitation, derived from the Commonwealth Constitution. The inquiry for determining whether an impugned law infringes the implied freedom of political communication is orthodox and familiar. The first step is to ascertain if the law imposes a burden on the freedom of political communication. Such a law is only valid if the burden is imposed to fulfil a constitutionally legitimate purpose, and the means adopted are reasonably appropriate and adapted to achieve that purpose: [5], [96]-[100].

2. The State properly conceded that the impugned provisions impose a burden on the freedom of political communication. It is well recognised that public assemblies about government or political matters are a species of communication that engages the implied freedom. Peaceful protest is indispensable to the exercise of political sovereignty by the people of the Commonwealth. The impugned provisions operate by denying the possibility of public assemblies in declared areas being authorised under Pt 4 of the *Summary Offences Act*, and thereby denying the possibility of qualified statutory immunity under s 24 of the *Summary Offences Act*. The result is to make participating in an affected public assembly a more legally precarious activity. Section 200(5) of the *LEPRA* adds to the burden by enhancing police powers to issue directions under s 197 in the context of a public assembly, including where traffic or other persons are being obstructed. Failure to comply with such a direction, without reasonable excuse, is an offence under s 199 of the Act. As many public assemblies will, of their nature, cause obstruction of non-participants in the vicinity, the risk of participants becoming potentially guilty of an offence under s 199 presents a substantial impediment to holding any form of public assembly within a PARD area. The burden is substantial, notwithstanding that a PARD is confined both temporally and geographically: [35]-[42], [101]-[117].

3. The legislature in enacting the *Amending Act* perceived that community tensions were running high after the Bondi Beach attack, as may generally be the case after terrorist incidents. The legislature also perceived that public assemblies in the context of such community tension had the potential to undermine social cohesion and place the community at risk. This was the mischief to which the *Amending Act* is directed. The purpose of the impugned provisions is to address that mischief by restricting and discouraging public assemblies within declared areas, in order to protect social cohesion by avoiding the divisiveness and disharmony that arises from public assemblies being held in the period following a terrorist attack: [6], [118]-[137].

4. The purpose of the impugned provisions is not compatible with the maintenance of the constitutionally prescribed system of representative and responsible government. It is not a constitutionally legitimate purpose to seek to discourage all forms of public assembly across a nominated geographical area to preserve social cohesion, on the grounds that the very act of holding public assemblies is apt to cause tension and division in the community. The system of representative and responsible government entrenched by the Constitution, involving a free and true choice by the electors, entails acceptance of the potential for disharmony, incivility and disruption that is part and parcel of democratic intercourse. Suppressing public debate of certain kinds may be a means to a legitimate end, but it cannot be a legitimate end in itself. The impugned provisions cannot be read down as the constitutional vice lies in the purpose for which the power has been conferred: [6], [138]-[161].

5. Even if the *Amending Act* had a legitimate purpose, compatible with the system of representative and responsible government, the means chosen by the legislature are not reasonably appropriate and adapted to achieving that purpose. The PARD scheme is a blunt tool which does not require, or even allow for, consideration of the characteristics or conduct of any particular public assemblies or the nature or severity of any threat to the community that could be said to arise. It is not enough that the legislature perceived the need for strong action to preserve the cohesion and safety of the community in the wake of an exceptionally traumatic public event. The system of government established by the Commonwealth Constitution does not permit the State to pursue such an objective by authorising the executive to impose such a sweeping and indiscriminate restriction on all public assemblies, without any mechanism for tailoring the restriction to assemblies that have the particular consequence of causing another part of the community to feel fearful or threatened: [6], [162]-[170].

*As to whether the Court has jurisdiction to determine the validity of the impugned provisions and, if so, whether it should be exercised*

6. Given the PARD first made on 24 December 2025 is no longer in force and unable to be revived, the impugned provisions are dormant and their validity has no immediate legal significance for the plaintiffs. However, there remains a justiciable controversy, apt to be quelled, about the validity of the provisions that enabled the PARD to be made and that attach legal consequences to such a PARD. The continued existence of the law empowering the Commissioner or a Deputy Commissioner to make a PARD, with all of the consequences then triggered under the impugned provisions, puts the plaintiffs in a position of jeopardy about the operation of the impugned provisions upon them. There is a material risk, which is more than remote, that circumstances will arise in the foreseeable future that will enable the making of a PARD restricting the plaintiffs in their protest activities, particularly given the breadth of the concept of “community safety” relevant to the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner’s state of satisfaction that it is appropriate to make a PARD. The plaintiffs had standing to bring these proceedings when they were commenced and they continue to have standing to maintain the proceedings. Prudential considerations telling against the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction are not engaged. A Chapter III matter persists and requires resolution. The declarations of invalidity sought by the plaintiffs can and should be made: [7], [171]-[222].

Eat Shit Minns

I wouldn’t be surprised if Minns wanted this law only to shield Israel’s president from criticism and now that the president is long gone, he doesn’t care.

Screw you, Minnsy-poo!

HAHAAHAH FUCK YES CHOKE ON IT MINNS

His draconian laws struck down as unconstitutional and nurses got a pay rise. He must be very upset that the little man got somewhat of a win today.

Also a big thank you for nothing to my MP who I wrote to seeking them to stand up against these laws and all they did was toe the party line

Get fucked Minns. Seriously he needs to resign

Great that the courts have dealt with this but this should not pass without retribution for those who rushed through the unconstitutional laws & recompense for those negatively impacted by them.

It’s not good enough if the only outcomes is that the law is nullified.