By Paul Gregoire and Ugur Nedim
Palestine Action Group (PAG) organiser Josh Lees lodged a notice of intention to hold a public assembly, under section 23 of the Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW) (the Act), with the NSW Police Force on 26 July 2025. PAG was planning a march across the Sydney Harbour Bridge on Sunday 3 August 2025, with an estimated 10,000 people protesting Israel’s continuing genocide in Gaza.
NSW police commissioner Karen Webb applied to the NSW Supreme Court to have the protest shut down, under section 25 of the Act. This attempt to deny it was urgently heard on Friday, 1 August, two days prior to the scheduled demonstration, with Justice Belinda Rigg determining to let it proceed on the Saturday, with estimates stating between 100,000 to 300,000 ended up participating.
Long-time supporter of the Palestinian cause, Sydney activist Josh Lees was the lead defendant during proceedings. He tendered a bundle of documented evidence supporting the rally, and he testified and was cross-examined in respect of PAG having been conducting regular protests in the Sydney CBD in opposition to the Israeli genocide against the Palestinians of Gaza since October 2023.
“The stated purpose of the regular protests has been to show the Palestinian people that PAG stands against genocide, and to contribute to a global movement that will make it harder for Israel to kill and oppress Palestinians with impunity,” Justice Rigg explained in her 2 August 2025 judgement. Her Honour added that 85 such rallies have occurred without incident.
NSW police acting assistant commissioner Adam Johnson was one of the law enforcement representatives to testify before court. The senior officer added that for the most part the dozens of PAG demonstrations have been peaceful. But as he provided evidence to the court on 1 August, he underscored that there was a list of reasons a march across the Harbour Bridge was problematic.
The Form 1 process
Those seeking authorisation to conduct a street protest in NSW need to lodge a Form 1 with NSW police, at least seven days prior. The point of the Form 1 process is not to prohibit public assemblies but to facilitate them and the freedom of speech involved without sanction, noted former NSW Justice John Hamilton in the 2004 NSW Supreme Court case Commissioner of Police versus Gabriel.
Justice Rigg explained in her 2 August 2025 ruling that the laws governing the procedure of notifying the authorities of an intention to hold a street demonstration are set out in part 4 of the Summary Offences Act 1988 (the Act). Her Honour also explained that if the requirements under subsections 23(1)(a) through to subsection 23(1)(e) of the Act are satisfied then the procession is authorised.
These requirements include the provision of the notice to the commissioner, which must be in the prescribed form, and note the date, time and place of the meeting, the intended route any march involved, and the purpose for the event. An of estimated number of participants must be supplied to police, and the lodger of the Form 1 must sign it and provide their address.
As per section 23(1)(f) of the Act, if the organisers of a rally have provided notice of it 7 days prior to the demonstration taking place and the NSW police commissioner has not lodged an attempt to see it prohibited under section 25, then the notice of intention is considered to have been successfully lodged, and the protest action is authorised.
Section 24 of the Act then provides that if an authorised protest proceeds as per the particulars of a Form 1 in respect of subsection 23(1)(c), or the date, time, place and route to be taken, then participants in this demonstration cannot be found guilty of offences “relating to participating in an unlawful assembly or the obstruction of any person, vehicle or vessel in a public place”.
But if the NSW police commissioner seeks to prohibit a public assembly under section 25 of the Act and is successful, the consequence is that the rally is no longer an authorised public assembly and participants in any demonstration will not be provided with the section 24 immunity against obstruction offences.
Evidence before the court
Lees put it to the court that after years of staging protests the PAG rallies comprise of a well-established peaceful mass movement, with a “very experienced” marshalling team, with over 100 marshals organised for the proposed 3 August March for Humanity procession across the bridge, and these rallies involve ground rules, such as no racism or antisemitism being displayed.
“Mr Lees’ evidence indicates that the timing of the lodging of notice of this proposed march, and its location, is directly responsive to the dramatic increase in the known suffering of Gazan citizens over the last weeks,” Justice Rigg explained. Her Honour added that 147 Palestinians had recently died of starvation, and the death of up to 40,000 infants was imminent if nothing was done.
The PAG representative further put to the court that there was widespread support for the Palestinians of Gaza in the NSW community. PAG was willing to negotiate a delay with police in respect to the march, but the urgency of the starvation program in Gaza warranted otherwise, while the Sydney Harbour Bridge was its desired location as it would result in a global statement.
Assistance commissioner Johnson listed reasons as to why the march should not go ahead, which included lack of organisation, discrepancies between estimated participants and the likely number, the chosen path of the march being a busy traffic route, safety plans not having been indicated, nor was enough notice given for such a sizable event and it would impose a strain on traffic that day.
A further issue was policing numbers needed for the demonstration. Johnson said the uncertainty around how many participants could turn up for the 3 August Harbour Bridge rally posed problems for the NSW Police Force planning for the number of officers it must have at site on the day, because greater numbers of protesters required additional officers, yet the number to plan for wasn’t known.
Johnson’s affidavit also set out that he understood that a prohibition order from the court would not mean that protesters continued to gather on the day and that they would attempt to proceed with their public assembly despite the Supreme Court ordering that it could not take place. But he added that this would permit officers to exercise move-on orders and apply charges to antisocial behaviour.
On cross-examination, Johnson agreed that NSW police would still have powers of arrest and to move on regardless of whether the rally was authorised or unauthorised. He confirmed that the bridge would be closed for traffic either way, and he could not provide any evidence of how NSW police would act differently if the event was prohibited.
NSW police chief inspector Brian Yates said planning for such large events, as with New Years Eve, usually commences 8 months prior. Fire and Rescue NSW acting assistant commissioner Matthew Wormald added that there was also a fire risk and usually his agency would have months to plan for such issues.
Lees testified that the bridge march would take place authorised or otherwise. He pointed to the mid-2020 Black Lives Matter rally, which had a question hanging over its authorisation, as the Supreme Court permitted it to go ahead right before it was scheduled to proceed, which had involved a crowd of 20,000 protesters gathering at Sydney Town Hall regardless of the decision.
Justice Rigg explained the NSW police considered there was not enough time to safely plan for such a large number of people to walk across the Harbour Bridge, while PAG had insisted the march will happen and authorisation would provide “greater certainty and structure”. And her Honour added that like the 2020 BLM protest, if it was prohibited, it might lead to greater numbers attending.
A matter of humanity
In delivering her decision, her Honour underscored that the public interest in holding the event, or in upholding the freedom of expression and assembly for protest participants at that time, was “very high”, but then again, the concerns raised about the public interest in preventing any risk that may eventuate from the march was also “very high”.
The evidence before the court showed that more time for planning would reduce risks, however PAG had presented a substantial argument in terms of the group’s organising experience, while the facts before the court also indicated that the bridge would be closed on the Sunday regardless of the ruling, and there was no evidence that public safety would be advanced by a prohibition order.
“In all the circumstances, the plaintiff has not established that the participants should not have the benefit of the immunity contained in section 24 of the Act,” her Honour said. “I am confident that PAG and its supporters will continue to work constructively with police to achieve as safe and smooth an event as possible…. I am not satisfied that I should prohibit the assembly.”
So, on 2 August 2025, Justice Rigg determined that no prohibition order should be granted and the Palestine Action Group’s March for Humanity across the Sydney Harbour Bridge could take place the following day.
Main image: Palestine Action Group spokesperson Josh Lees represented the organisation during the hearing that attempted to shut down the Sydney Harbour Bridge March for Humanity
