Anti-Protest Laws NSW | The Right To Peacefully Gather And Protest

A sweeping set of anti-protest laws introduced in the wake of the Bondi Beach terror attack has been ruled invalid by the New South Wales Court of Appeal, in the landmark decision of Jarrett v State of New South Wales [2026] NSWCA 62 with major implications for civil liberties and police powers across the state.

What Are Anti-Protest Laws?

Anti-protest laws are laws that restrict or prevent people from peacefully gathering and protesting in a democratic society. Protests can only be restricted in manners considered necessary and proportionate for a legitimate purpose.

New Protest Laws: What Are The Laws Around Protesting?

The laws, passed under the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2025 (NSW), were enacted just days after the 14 December 2025 attack, during a period of heightened public anxiety and security concerns. Designed to give police greater control over public gatherings, the legislation significantly altered existing frameworks governing protests and assemblies in New South Wales.

At the heart of the controversy was a new police power to issue what is known as a “public assembly restriction declaration” (PARD). This mechanism allowed authorities to designate specific geographic areas where public assemblies could be restricted or effectively banned for a set period of time.

On 24 December 2025, NSW Police exercised these new powers for the first time, issuing a PARD covering a large portion of central Sydney. The declaration was later extended through January and February 2026, remaining in force until it expired on 17 February.

During this period, the declaration prevented individuals and groups from obtaining legal authorisation to hold protests under the Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW)—a longstanding mechanism that had previously allowed public assemblies to proceed lawfully, even when they caused disruption such as blocking roads or pedestrian traffic.

How Anti-Protest Laws Affect Activists and Citizens

Under the pre-existing legal framework, authorised protests were granted a degree of legal protection. Participants were shielded from certain offences that would otherwise apply, recognising that some level of disruption is an inherent feature of public demonstrations in a democratic society. However, once a PARD was in place, this pathway to lawful protest was effectively shut down within the declared zone.

Can People Peacefully Protest in NSW? Expanded Police Enforcement Powers

The impact of a PARD extended beyond simply denying authorisation. It also activated a broader range of police powers under the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW) (LEPRA). Officers were permitted to issue move-on directions, make arrests, and use reasonable force to prevent gatherings from forming or continuing.

This marked a significant shift. In ordinary circumstances, police powers are more limited when dealing with authorised protests. But under a PARD, even peaceful assemblies could be treated as unlawful, exposing participants to arrest and potential criminal charges which carry penalties of imprisonment with criminal convictions.

Critics argued that the laws created a chilling effect on political expression, effectively discouraging individuals from participating in protests out of fear of legal consequences.

Legal Challenge Mounts

The validity of the PARD regime was soon challenged in court, with opponents arguing that the laws infringed upon the implied freedom of political communication protected by the Australian Constitution.

This constitutional principle, while not explicitly written, has long been recognised by the High Court as essential to maintaining Australia’s system of representative government. It protects the ability of individuals to communicate on political and governmental matters, including through public protest.

The legal challenge focused on several key provisions across multiple pieces of legislation, including sections of the Summary Offences Act, LEPRA, and the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002 (NSW). Together, these provisions formed the legal backbone of the PARD system.

Opponents argued that the laws imposed an unjustifiable burden on political communication by restricting public assemblies across broad areas, without sufficient safeguards or consideration of individual circumstances.

Court of Appeal Decision

In its ruling, the NSW Court of Appeal agreed, declaring the relevant provisions invalid.

The court applied a well-established constitutional test. First, it considered whether the laws burdened the freedom of political communication. It found that they clearly did, as they restricted the ability of individuals to gather and express political views in public spaces.

The next question was whether that burden was justified—specifically, whether the laws served a legitimate purpose compatible with Australia’s system of government, and whether the means used were proportionate to achieving that purpose.

The NSW Government had argued that the laws were necessary to maintain social cohesion in the aftermath of the Bondi Beach attack. Lawmakers expressed concern that public protests during such a sensitive period could inflame tensions, deepen divisions, and pose risks to public safety.

However, the court rejected this reasoning.

It found that seeking to discourage all forms of public assembly across a broad area, simply on the basis that protests might cause tension or division, was not a constitutionally legitimate objective. In a democracy, the court noted, public debate—including contentious or uncomfortable expression—is a fundamental feature, not something to be suppressed.

Even if the purpose had been deemed legitimate, the court concluded that the laws were not appropriately tailored. The PARD system was described as a “blunt tool,” lacking the flexibility to assess the nature, scale, or risk associated with individual protests.

Rather than targeting specific threats, the laws imposed sweeping restrictions on all public assemblies within declared areas, regardless of their content or conduct.

Key Provisions Invalidated

As a result, the court declared multiple provisions invalid, including sections 27A and 27B of the Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW), section 200(5) of LEPRA, and parts of the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002 (NSW) that enabled the creation and enforcement of PARDs.

The ruling effectively dismantles the legal framework that allowed police to impose blanket bans on public assemblies in designated areas.

Broader Implications

The decision has been widely viewed as a significant affirmation of civil liberties, particularly the right to protest and engage in political expression.

Legal experts say the ruling reinforces the principle that even in times of crisis, government powers must remain subject to constitutional limits. While public safety is a legitimate concern, measures taken to address it must be carefully calibrated and proportionate.

The case also highlights the tension between security and freedom in the aftermath of major incidents. Governments often face pressure to act quickly and decisively, but the court’s decision underscores the importance of ensuring that such actions do not overreach.

For protest organisers and civil society groups, the ruling restores a level of certainty and protection that had been eroded under the PARD regime.

At the same time, it raises questions about how authorities can effectively respond to genuine security threats without infringing on fundamental democratic rights.

What Happens Next

The NSW Government has yet to indicate whether it will seek to appeal the decision or introduce revised legislation. Any future attempt to regulate public assemblies in similar circumstances will likely need to be more narrowly focused and responsive to specific risks.

In the meantime, the court’s ruling stands as a clear message: broad, pre-emptive restrictions on public protest—particularly those that fail to distinguish between peaceful expression and genuine threats—are unlikely to withstand constitutional scrutiny.

As New South Wales continues to navigate the balance between safety and freedom, this case will serve as a defining reference point for lawmakers, law enforcement, and the public alike.