NSW anti-protest laws struck down by court after Bondi terror attack
Consensus Summary
The NSW Court of Appeal struck down controversial anti-protest laws introduced after the Bondi Beach terrorist attack, which killed 15 people, on 2026-04-16. The Public Assembly Restriction Declaration (PARD) laws, passed in an emergency sitting on Christmas Eve 2025, gave police broad powers to restrict protests in Sydney, including during the visit of Israeli President Isaac Herzog in February. The court ruled the laws unconstitutionally burdened freedom of political communication, with Chief Justice Andrew Bell leading the decision. Three activist groups—Blak Caucus, Palestine Action Group, and Jews Against the Occupation '48—challenged the laws, arguing they had a 'chilling effect' on speech. Premier Chris Minns defended the laws as necessary for public safety but acknowledged disappointment in the ruling. The decision leaves protesters potentially eligible for charge withdrawals and raises questions about civil damages, though the government has not ruled out an appeal. Police are reviewing charges against protesters from the anti-Herzog rally, which turned violent and prompted a police watchdog investigation. Legal experts suggest the ruling could limit future attempts to restrict protests under the guise of social cohesion.
✓ Verified by 2+ sources
Key details reported by multiple sources:
- The NSW Court of Appeal struck down the Public Assembly Restriction Declaration (PARD) laws on 2026-04-16, ruling they 'impermissibly burdened' the implied right to freedom of political communication under Australia's constitution.
- The laws were passed on Christmas Eve 2025 (2025-12-25) during an emergency sitting of parliament following the Bondi Beach terrorist attack, which killed 15 people.
- The restrictions were initially applied to Greater Sydney but were later reduced to the eastern suburbs and CBD, excluding Hyde Park for Australia Day protests.
- The laws were challenged by three groups: Blak Caucus (Elizabeth Jarrett), Palestine Action Group (Joshua Lees), and Jews Against the Occupation '48 (Michelle Berkon).
- The restrictions were in place during protests against Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s visit to Australia in February 2026, which turned violent and led to a police watchdog investigation.
- Premier Chris Minns defended the laws as 'necessary and important' after the Bondi attack but acknowledged the government was 'disappointed' by the court ruling.
- The police commissioner, Mal Lanyon, extended the restrictions multiple times, with the final declaration lapsing on 2026-02-17.
Points of Difference
Details reported by only one source:
- Chief Justice Andrew Bell specifically ruled the laws 'impermissibly burdened' the implied right to freedom of political communication.
- Hushed cheers and hugs occurred inside the Banco Court in Sydney as supporters draped in keffiyeh scarves watched the ruling.
- Redfern Legal Centre is exploring damages claims against NSW Police for protesters charged under the laws.
- The NSW Council for Civil Liberties claimed police 'knowingly wielded unconstitutional powers to harass and silence citizens protesting peacefully'.
- A protest outside Surry Hills Police Station after the anti-Herzog rally was a flashpoint while the laws were in effect.
- The court ruling is the second time in six months an anti-protest law passed by the Minns government has been found unconstitutional.
- Police used the laws to stop Paul Silva, a member of Blak Caucus, from organizing a march against Indigenous deaths in custody starting from Hyde Park.
- The premier’s office referred to his December 2025 comments criticizing Hezbollah flags, images of Ayatollah Khamenei, and protest signs comparing Zionism to neo-Nazism.
- Police commissioner Mal Lanyon said officers were reviewing charges against anti-Herzog protesters amid calls for them to be dropped.
- The Greens justice spokesperson, Sue Higginson, called Minns’ comments an 'extraordinary attack' on the judiciary.
Where the reporting differs
Details that conflict, or appear in only some outlets:
- The ABC states the laws were extended on four occasions, while the Guardian does not specify the number of extensions but notes they were extended multiple times.
- The Guardian claims the anti-Herzog protest was subject to a police watchdog investigation into allegations of police misconduct and brutality, while the ABC does not explicitly mention a watchdog investigation but notes tensions flared at the rally.
- The Guardian reports that police had indicated plans to charge 30 more people before the court ruling, while the ABC does not mention this specific number.
Source Articles
Controversial laws to restrict protests in NSW struck down by top court
The laws, rushed through parliament after the Bondi Beach terrorist attack, have been found to be unconstitutional by the state's highest court.
Palestine Action Group celebrates after NSW supreme court strikes down anti-protest law – video
Palestine Action Group (PAG) celebrates a 'resounding win' after the NSW supreme court found the Public Assembly Restriction Declaration (Pard) law constitutionally invalid. Enacted after the Bondi terror attack, the law effectively meant protesters could not march without risk of arrest. PAG was one of three groups that challenged the legislation, which was in place during a protest against the Israeli president, Isaac Herzog, in February NSW's highest court strikes down anti-protest law intro
NSW’s highest court strikes down anti-protest law introduced in wake of Bondi beach terror attack
Court finds law – which effectively meant protesters could not march without risk of arrest – is unconstitutional Follow our Australia news live blog for latest updates Get our breaking news email , free app or daily news podcast New South Wales’ highest court has struck down an anti-protest law brought in after the Bondi beach terror attack which gave police the power to restrict marches, including at the anti-Herzog rally earlier this year. The court of appeal handed down its findings on Thurs
Minns doubles down on ‘rational’ anti-protest law despite NSW’s highest court ruling it unconstitutional
Greens criticise premier’s ‘extraordinary attack’ on judiciary and urge him to accept he ‘got it wrong’ Get our breaking news email , free app or daily news podcast The New South Wales premier has doubled down on an anti-protest law struck down in the state’s highest court last week, defending the legislation introduced by his government as “rational and proportionate”. But advocates for protesters charged at demonstrations restricted under the laws have criticised Chris Minns’ comments, calling
Lawyers explore damages claims over controversial NSW protest laws
Protesters caught up in the government's now-canned protest laws could seek damages as lawyers review the implications of the Supreme Court ruling them "unconstitutional".
More Politics stories
Australia’s largest gun buyback scheme after Bondi terror attack
Australia introduces gambling ad opt-out register and reforms amid political debate
Labor’s $5,000 cap on veterans’ allied health services sparks outrage
Victorian teachers accept pay deal after strikes, ending dispute
One Nation candidate Parminder Singh's homophobic comments spark party backlash
Productivity Commission criticizes WA GST deal as costly and unfair, calling for reversal
Latest cross-verified stories
Sydney Swans players linked to sexual assault allegations and club sanctions
Australia vs Bangladesh Test series in 2026, featuring historic upsets and batting struggles
Ukraine targets Wildberries warehouses and Russian infrastructure with drone strikes amid escalating war
Meta trial over social media addiction in children begins in California
Prince Harry and others ordered to pay legal costs to Daily Mail publisher after losing privacy lawsuit
Mass bird deaths linked to H5 bird flu in Australia’s southern states
Browse all stories from April 2026 in the archive.