NSW court strikes down protest law, complicating Minns' 'globalise the intifada' ban plans
Consensus Summary
The NSW Court of Appeal struck down a controversial anti-protest law on April 17, 2026, ruling that protecting 'social cohesion' from inflammatory speech is not a valid constitutional purpose. The law, introduced after the Bondi Beach terror attack, had allowed police to restrict protests, including the violent anti-Herzog rally in February. This ruling complicates Premier Chris Minnsâ plans to ban the phrase 'globalise the intifada,' which he previously called 'hateful' and divisive. Legal experts, including Anne Twomey, warned that the judgment makes future slogan bans unlikely to survive legal challenges, as the court emphasized that suppressing speech to avoid offense or distress is unconstitutional. Meanwhile, Queenslandâs recent ban on 'globalise the intifada' and 'from the river to the sea' is being closely monitored by NSW, with Minns now hesitant to proceed without further legal guidance. The ruling also raises questions about the validity of charges against 26 protesters arrested during the Herzog rally, with some legal representatives suggesting charges may be withdrawn.
â Verified by 2+ sources
Key details reported by multiple sources:
- NSW Court of Appeal struck down an anti-protest law on April 17, 2026, ruling it unconstitutionally burdened freedom of political communication
- The law was introduced after the Bondi Beach terror attack and gave police power to restrict marches, including the anti-Herzog rally in February 2026
- The Court of Appeal ruled that protecting 'social cohesion' from 'upsetting, inflammatory, and divisive' speech is not a legitimate constitutional purpose
- NSW Premier Chris Minns previously announced plans to ban the phrase 'globalise the intifada' in December 2025, citing it as 'hateful' and divisive
- A NSW parliamentary inquiry in January 2026 recommended banning 'globalise the intifada' only when used to incite hatred, harassment, intimidation, or violence, not an outright ban
- Queensland introduced a ban on 'globalise the intifada' and 'from the river to the sea' earlier in 2026, which NSW is monitoring
- Anne Twomey, a constitutional expert at the University of Sydney, warned that the NSW Court of Appealâs judgment makes future slogan bans unlikely to survive legal challenges
- The anti-protest law was used during the rally against Israeli President Isaac Herzogâs visit in February 2026, which turned violent and led to police misconduct allegations
- 26 protesters have been charged with offenses including assaulting police, resisting arrest, and using offensive language during the Herzog rally
Points of Difference
Details reported by only one source:
- The NSW Court of Appeal included Chief Justice Andrew Bell, Justice Julie Ward, and Justice Stephen Free in its ruling
- Majed Kheir, a solicitor representing protesters, called the judgment 'one of the greatest victories for civil liberties in Australian history' and suggested charges against protesters may be withdrawn
- Sam Lee, a supervising solicitor at Redfern Legal Centre, noted that some protesters faced charges under expanded police powers due to a 'major events declaration' during Herzogâs visit
- The now-struck-down law prevented protesters from using the stateâs permit-style system, which protected them from charges when marching
- The NSW police spokesperson confirmed they were 'working through the judgment' but did not commit to withdrawing charges
- The ABC described the phrase 'globalise the intifada' as 'often chanted at pro-Palestinian rallies and perceived by many Jews as a call to violence'
- The ABC noted that Premier Minns softened his language from 'the chant will be banned' in December to 'our intention is to introduce legislation' after the court ruling
- The ABC mentioned that Queenslandâs ban on 'from the river to the sea' and 'globalise the intifada' is being closely watched by NSW, with two protesters already charged under the new laws
Contradictions
Conflicting information between sources:
- The Guardian states that 26 protesters have been charged, while the ABC does not mention a specific number of charges but refers to two protesters charged in Queensland
- The Guardian explicitly states that the NSW Court of Appeal ruled on April 17, 2026, while the ABC does not specify the exact date of the ruling but refers to it as occurring on 'Thursday' (likely April 17)
- The Guardian mentions that the NSW government referred the matter to a lower house committee, which recommended 'considering' legislation, while the ABC does not mention the committeeâs recommendation explicitly
Source Articles
NSW should think twice before banning âglobalise the intifadaâ after court struck down anti-protest law, legal expert says
Another lawyer says ruling âputs brakes on the Minns governmentâs ability to use executive power to minimise peopleâs rights to protestâ Get our breaking news email , free app or daily news podcast The Minns government should think twice before imposing an outright ban on the phrase âglobalise the intifadaâ in the wake of a landmark finding that could limit attempts to control speech and protests, a leading constitutional expert has said. New South Walesâ highest court ruled in favour of the Pal
Two words threaten to derail Minns's plan to ban controversial phrase
NSW Premier Chris Minns must now decide whether to proceed with the next restrictions he hoped to impose on protests after his latest court defeat.