Notice of Intention procedure for holding a rally or march
Summary
In the vast majority of cases, the police will cooperate with a standard rally and march going ahead, providing that you give them 7 days' notice and complete a "Notice of Intention" (sometimes known as a "Form 1" or a "Schedule 1"). Copies of the "Notice of Intention" will often be sent to you by the police, or a copy can be found in Schedule 1 Summary Offences Regulation 2010. If the police say they agree with the rally or march going ahead, then in the vast majority of cases there are no problems.
The Notice of Intention form provides for the protest organiser to acknowledge that they take “responsibility” for the protest going ahead. This has no real legal meaning.
Since about 2009, the police have often said that they do not oppose the protest going ahead, but then ask the protest organiser to sign a “Letter of Agreement.” The “Letters of Agreement” – in this author’s opinion – is an attempt by police to impose a sort of fake authority, or are intended by police to give the impression that they have legal powers that they do not have. It is highly recommended that protest organisers do not sign such “Letters of Agreement,” but to simply ignore them. The police then tend to forget about them and nothing more is said.
When a “Letter of Agreement” is chased up by the police, a simple explanation saying that you don’t want to sign the Letter because you are unsure of what it means legally is normally enough for the police to drop the issue. Where the police “insists” on the Letter being signed, it is suggested that you contact the author of this website on dalemills (at) cantab.net
The rest of this page will deal further with “Letters of Agreement” and where the police oppose a protest going ahead.
Notices of Intention: details
The law relating to protests can be technical and complex. This is not because the law itself is especially complicated but because of the wording that is used. Additionally, vast amounts of misleading information may be given out by the police. It is not clear how much of this misleading information is police ignorance (after all, they are not lawyers) and how much is the police trying to bluff their way with people who are not lawyers.
The theory
Australia comes from an historical "common law" system. Essentially, this means that you can do anything you like as long as there is no a specific law against what you want to do. All countries (except Australia) have some sort of Bill of Rights, sometimes referred to as a "Charter" or a "Human Rights Act." There are some legislative rights to protest in the ACT, Victoria and Queensland, but not in NSW. However, the courts have long recognised that there is a legal freedom to protest and this common law right applies in NSW. This common law right to protest is limited by legislation.
In NSW, the right to protest is regulated by sections 22-27 Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW). The Act refers to "peaceful assembly." Peaceful assembly is what most people would call a "rally." The other word used in the legislation is a "procession" which is what most people would call a "march." This page will use "peaceful assembly" and "procession" for the rest of this page so as to make the terminology consistent with the Act.
In theory, you can have a peaceful assembly and procession anywhere at any time: but in reality it is likely that you will end up breaking some laws. For example, if you engage in a peaceful assembly across George Street, Sydney, in front of the Town Hall, you are not breaking a law against peaceful assembly, because you are free to do that anytime, anywhere. However, by blocking off George Street, you would be breaking the law in relation to obstructing traffic - because obstructing traffic is a crime.
There is a "Notice of Intention" procedure in place to deal with this problem. This means that if you give the police "notice" of the assembly and procession, then you have a legal defence to the offences of obstructing traffic or obstructing pedestrians. That is, if you give notice to the police, you are not breaking the law if you then obstruct traffic or pedestrians.
[technical point: the "notice procedure" is in contrast to the "permit procedure." You do not get a "permit" for a protest in NSW and the police do not give "permission." You just need to give notice (see below). For a detailed explanation as to the differences, see Roger Douglas' book Dealing With Demonstrations.]
7 days’ clear notice to the police
If you fill in the Notice of Intention form and give it to the police with 7 days' notice, then the protest becomes "authorised." The word "authorised" is misleading, because "authorised" suggests that someone has authorised something - but this isn’t the case. The police have no power to "authorise" or "unauthorise" the peaceful assembly taking place. The police can only indicate that they agree with the peaceful assembly and procession going ahead or they do not agree. If the police don't want the protest to go ahead, then the law requires the police to try and negotiate with the protest organiser. If the protest organiser does not agree with police demands, then the police need to apply to the Supreme Court for the protest to be "prohibited."
It is rare that a “prohibition order” is given by the Supreme Court." The police have made some applications to the Supreme Court for protests to be prohibited - and they usually lose. The last time the police made an application to the Supreme Court for a protest to be "prohibited" was in May 2012, which resulted in a resounding defeat for the police. This was the case of Langosch (discussed below).
[ technical legal point: if 7 days' notice is required, then when exactly does the Notice of Intention need to be given to the police? If a protest is going to happen on a Tuesday - is giving the Form to the police on the Tuesday of the week before 7 days notice? Just to be safe, it is suggested that it is given to the police on the Monday before a protest which is due in 8 days' time. However, the police have tried to argue it both ways. Researchers might want to look at the wording s23(1)(f)(i) Summary Offences Act and s36 Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW).]
Even if the peaceful assembly is "prohibited" by the court, you can still go ahead. This is because the word "prohibited" in the Act is also misleading. It simply means that ordinary protesters in the peaceful assembly can go ahead and protest, but that you don’t have the immunity from the criminal offences of obstruction and unlawful assembly.
[technical point: the organiser (the person who signed the form) may be in contempt of Court if he or she continues to organise the protest in defiance of a Court order.]
It may be that the police don't fully understand these legal subtitles, and they perceive a protest to have been "prohibited" as one that is in some vague sense "illegal" and police tend to police these assemblies very aggressively. The author of this website has been told by senior police officers that such assemblies are "unlawful assemblies." This is clearly incorrect, but senior police officers may direct their junior officers in accordance with that belief.
Just to repeat: the advantage of completing a Notice of Intention (sometimes called a Form 1 or a Schedule 1) is that you have a defence to any charges relating to obstructing vehicles or pedestrians, or the offence of unlawful assembly. More broadly, the police will see you as "cooperative" and might be less likely to be threatening or intimidating or to use unlawful violence. Of course, submitting a Notice of Intention does not mean that you are protected from other crimes - such as graffitiing, or breach of the peace, or damaging property (these are normally always criminal offences).
[practical point: some protest organisers in the past have refused to give a Notice of Intention to the police as a matter of principle. If the police subsequently find out that such protests are planned, the protest tends to be either ignored by the police or policed aggressively].
The practice
The completed Notice of Intention (or Form 1) can be served by "leaving it with any member of the police force" (s23(2) Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW). It is important to photocopy the Form 1 so you have a copy for your own records, and to get a receipt from the police officer that you give the Form 1 to. Some police officers say that you have to give the Form 1 to the police station nearest the protest point or to the Police Head Office. This is not correct. However, it might be easier just to do so in the first place.
Also, if the police oppose a Form 1 application by applying to the Supreme Court (and the police are successful), then the Supreme Court can award legal costs against the person who signed the Form 1. These costs can be thousands of dollars, so the person signing the Form 1 has to consider this before signing. The ability to award costs in this way has not been known to occur in relation to a protest situation (at least in the last 12 years). Some protest groups will get a person without any assets to sign the Form 1.
Such groups, however, will need to have confidence in the person who signs the Form 1. If the police contest the protest and make an application to the Supreme Court, or want to change terms on the Notice of Intention, then the person who signs the Form becomes the "star." Only the person who signs the Form can negotiate changes and only the person who signs the Form is held responsible (not the organising collective). The police, therefore, will sometimes put enormous pressure on such a person, such as phoning them a dozen times in one day, demanding that they sign "condition letters", visiting them at their home, etc, in order to get the person who signed the Notice of Intention to change march routes, agree to conditions, or to cancel rallies and protests altogether.
A charitable interpretation is that even very senior police officers are sometimes confused about this area of the law. The author of this website takes a more cynical view, as he has explained matters to senior police on numerous occasions. Additionally, the police can receive legal advice from the Crown Solicitors' Office.
While freedom of speech and political expression are an essential part of a democratic society, police on the day are more likely to focus on issues such as traffic disruption. Their educational and cultural milieu is such that they simply do not understand the importance of political dissent within a liberal-democratic context. Many police seem to see protesters as being similar to drunks causing havoc outside of a pub on a Friday night, and will adopt a similar attitude to both. An even less charitable interpretation is that the police are aware that they have limited legal powers in relation to protests, and they therefore wish to intimidate and bully protest organisers by harassing them.
If the police have said that they will oppose the protest going ahead and will be making an application to the Supreme Court, it is important to get legal advice as soon as possible. This is because it may only be a few days or a weekend between any indication that the police oppose a protest going ahead and appearing in the Supreme Court. The author of this website may be able to introduce you to lawyers who can assist. If this happens, contact the author on dalemills (at) cantab.net (I check my emails several times a day).
If you insist on having the protest, the police may decide that they won't go to the Supreme Court but may police the protest more aggressively. It is better to get police agreement, but sometimes the police insist on conditions that activists find unacceptable (see “Letters of Agreement” below).
How do you obtain "authorisation"?
To obtain authorisation (remember, it is an automatic authorisation) you need to give 7 days’ clear notice. The form that needs to be completed is a "Notice of Intention." A copy can be given to you by the police or can be found at Appendix 1 of the Summary Offences Regulation.
Filling in the form
The form requires details of the peaceful assembly or march, such as
- date of protest
- if it is a march, state the time at which it will commence, and a
proposed route
- the purpose of the protest
- an expected number of participants at the protest, etc.
The notice must be signed by the organiser of the protest and state their address (a business address will do). Sometimes, the Form will be signed by “the XYZ protest committee.” The police sometimes don’t object to this.
The bottom of the "Notice of Intention" says that "I take responsibility for organising and conducting the proposed assembly." It is not clear what this means, if anything, apart from the fact that a person can be directed to not further organise the assembly if the Supreme Court so orders. Sometimes, the police will say that this means that the organiser has to help the police catch people who commit trivial criminal offences during the protest. This is another example of "legal advice" that the police simply make up to intimidate people. [technical legal point: for serious crimes, note s316 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).]
Giving less than 7 days’ clear notice to the police
A procedure exists where it is possible to get a peaceful assembly "authorised" if you give less than 7 days' notice. You can still give a Notice of Intention to the police, but this time they have the discretion to say that they don’t approve of it. If that happens, it is possible to apply to the Supreme Court for an order. The author of this website does not believe that this has happened at any time in the last 12 years.
If the law is not on your side, and you are giving less than 7 days' notice, then it is worth considering whether you should negotiate with the police. Remember, the vast majority of protests go ahead without any incident. The police only tend to pretend to have powers they don't have when there is a legal conflict between the protest organisers and the police. Therefore, it's better not to be overly aggressive in your negotiations if the law is not on your side. A good example of protests held at a day or two days' notice included Tamil protests in Sydney during 2010-2011, where the police facilitated protests at very short notice.
Protesting at Town Hall Square
"Town Hall Square" is the space between Sydney Town Hall and St. Andrew's Cathedral. It is a common starting point for rallies and marches and is formally known as Sydney Square. See protesting at special places for more information about protesting at Town Hall Square.
What is the likelihood of the police taking the matter to the Supreme Court?
It is rare for the police to seek a Supreme Court "prohibition" order. They are more likely to say “we won't allow it” or "that's not going to happen." The officer who says this is likely to be a Sergeant from the Traffic Division. They are well aware of the basic law in relation to protests. Simply point out that you know that the police have no power to prohibit a peaceful assembly and they have to apply to the Supreme Court if they wish to do so. This is especially the case since the Supreme Court case of Langosch (see below). If the police continue to oppose the assembly going ahead, consider contacting the author of this website at dalemills (at) cantab.net for more information.
Langosch
The latest and most important Supreme Court decision in relation to the Notice of Intention procedure is Langosch. The decision of Langosch can be found here. Sydney activist Patrick Langosch signed a "Notice of Intention" Form to hold a protest on behalf of the Al-Nakba Planning Committee for a protest on 15 May 2012 at Sydney Town Hall. The protest was planned for a Friday evening and involved a march through some of Sydney’s busiest streets.
The police opposed the protest going ahead for reason normally raised by the police: that the protest going ahead presented a danger to the safety of protestors and pedestrians, the protest’s interference with traffic, its disruption to train and bus transport and the inconvenience to tens of thousands of commuters. One police officer even gave affidavit evidence saying that he had fears - if the protest went ahead - of the protest leading to “serious injury or death.”
The police also pointed out that Town Hall Square (more technically known as Sydney Square, in between St. Andrew’s Cathedral and Sydney Town Hall) was mostly privately owned, and that the protesters could have their protest at another time if they wished (but not Friday peak hour).
Despite the strong police objections, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the protests, and the protest went ahead. The Judge said that
- it was reasonable for protesters to commemorate a fixed day (May 15) even if that
occurred on a weekend.
- that despite the fact that “the initial assembly is to occur at 5.30 pm and the mobile
- part of the assembly is to go from 7.00 to 8.15 pm. It will take place in a crowded area in the Central Business District of Sydney
in the vicinity of major (though narrow) roads and of one of the most significant railway stations in the city. It will double-
back along George Street, which has perhaps more bus routes than any other road in Sydney,” it was acceptable to the
Court for the protest to go ahead.
- that “Town Hall Square is one of the few places available in Central Sydney for public assembly and is, accordingly, a natural
choice.”
- and that “public facilities are to be shared. It is of the nature of a protest that others will be affected and that their routines will be,
at least ephemerally, interrupted.”
Langosch is a high-water mark in protecting the rights of protesters, as it deals with many of the objections that the police normally raise (disruption to traffic, etc).
Earlier cases are useful to read to understand the background to the Langosch decision.
Previous cases include:
- Commissioner of Police v Vranjkovic (unreported, 1980 NSW BC8000050 27 November 1980), which involved a planned protest by
the Croatian National Council against the Yugoslav Government, outside the Yugoslav Consulate in Woollahra. This decision
discussed the role of a feared “breach of the peace” as well as confirming that a “prohibition order” did not make a subsequent
protest – in itself – illegal.
- Commissioner of Police v Rintoul, which involved the Refugee Action Coalition protesting outside the personal home of the then
Minister for Immigration, Phillip Ruddock. The Court in its decision emphasised the “very limited nature' of the 7-days Notice
procedure.”
- Commissioner of Police v Gabriel was a 2004 case also discussed these issues.
A summary of the above cases was given by the Crown (acting on behalf of the police) in Langosch. A copy of the Crown's legal submission to the Supreme Court in Langosch can be found here:
Summary
In the vast majority of cases, the police will cooperate with a standard rally and march going ahead, providing that you give them 7 days' notice and complete a "Notice of Intention" (sometimes known as a "Form 1" or a "Schedule 1"). Copies of the "Notice of Intention" will often be sent to you by the police, or a copy can be found in Schedule 1 Summary Offences Regulation 2010. If the police say they agree with the rally or march going ahead, then in the vast majority of cases there are no problems.
The Notice of Intention form provides for the protest organiser to acknowledge that they take “responsibility” for the protest going ahead. This has no real legal meaning.
Since about 2009, the police have often said that they do not oppose the protest going ahead, but then ask the protest organiser to sign a “Letter of Agreement.” The “Letters of Agreement” – in this author’s opinion – is an attempt by police to impose a sort of fake authority, or are intended by police to give the impression that they have legal powers that they do not have. It is highly recommended that protest organisers do not sign such “Letters of Agreement,” but to simply ignore them. The police then tend to forget about them and nothing more is said.
When a “Letter of Agreement” is chased up by the police, a simple explanation saying that you don’t want to sign the Letter because you are unsure of what it means legally is normally enough for the police to drop the issue. Where the police “insists” on the Letter being signed, it is suggested that you contact the author of this website on dalemills (at) cantab.net
The rest of this page will deal further with “Letters of Agreement” and where the police oppose a protest going ahead.
Notices of Intention: details
The law relating to protests can be technical and complex. This is not because the law itself is especially complicated but because of the wording that is used. Additionally, vast amounts of misleading information may be given out by the police. It is not clear how much of this misleading information is police ignorance (after all, they are not lawyers) and how much is the police trying to bluff their way with people who are not lawyers.
The theory
Australia comes from an historical "common law" system. Essentially, this means that you can do anything you like as long as there is no a specific law against what you want to do. All countries (except Australia) have some sort of Bill of Rights, sometimes referred to as a "Charter" or a "Human Rights Act." There are some legislative rights to protest in the ACT, Victoria and Queensland, but not in NSW. However, the courts have long recognised that there is a legal freedom to protest and this common law right applies in NSW. This common law right to protest is limited by legislation.
In NSW, the right to protest is regulated by sections 22-27 Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW). The Act refers to "peaceful assembly." Peaceful assembly is what most people would call a "rally." The other word used in the legislation is a "procession" which is what most people would call a "march." This page will use "peaceful assembly" and "procession" for the rest of this page so as to make the terminology consistent with the Act.
In theory, you can have a peaceful assembly and procession anywhere at any time: but in reality it is likely that you will end up breaking some laws. For example, if you engage in a peaceful assembly across George Street, Sydney, in front of the Town Hall, you are not breaking a law against peaceful assembly, because you are free to do that anytime, anywhere. However, by blocking off George Street, you would be breaking the law in relation to obstructing traffic - because obstructing traffic is a crime.
There is a "Notice of Intention" procedure in place to deal with this problem. This means that if you give the police "notice" of the assembly and procession, then you have a legal defence to the offences of obstructing traffic or obstructing pedestrians. That is, if you give notice to the police, you are not breaking the law if you then obstruct traffic or pedestrians.
[technical point: the "notice procedure" is in contrast to the "permit procedure." You do not get a "permit" for a protest in NSW and the police do not give "permission." You just need to give notice (see below). For a detailed explanation as to the differences, see Roger Douglas' book Dealing With Demonstrations.]
7 days’ clear notice to the police
If you fill in the Notice of Intention form and give it to the police with 7 days' notice, then the protest becomes "authorised." The word "authorised" is misleading, because "authorised" suggests that someone has authorised something - but this isn’t the case. The police have no power to "authorise" or "unauthorise" the peaceful assembly taking place. The police can only indicate that they agree with the peaceful assembly and procession going ahead or they do not agree. If the police don't want the protest to go ahead, then the law requires the police to try and negotiate with the protest organiser. If the protest organiser does not agree with police demands, then the police need to apply to the Supreme Court for the protest to be "prohibited."
It is rare that a “prohibition order” is given by the Supreme Court." The police have made some applications to the Supreme Court for protests to be prohibited - and they usually lose. The last time the police made an application to the Supreme Court for a protest to be "prohibited" was in May 2012, which resulted in a resounding defeat for the police. This was the case of Langosch (discussed below).
[ technical legal point: if 7 days' notice is required, then when exactly does the Notice of Intention need to be given to the police? If a protest is going to happen on a Tuesday - is giving the Form to the police on the Tuesday of the week before 7 days notice? Just to be safe, it is suggested that it is given to the police on the Monday before a protest which is due in 8 days' time. However, the police have tried to argue it both ways. Researchers might want to look at the wording s23(1)(f)(i) Summary Offences Act and s36 Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW).]
Even if the peaceful assembly is "prohibited" by the court, you can still go ahead. This is because the word "prohibited" in the Act is also misleading. It simply means that ordinary protesters in the peaceful assembly can go ahead and protest, but that you don’t have the immunity from the criminal offences of obstruction and unlawful assembly.
[technical point: the organiser (the person who signed the form) may be in contempt of Court if he or she continues to organise the protest in defiance of a Court order.]
It may be that the police don't fully understand these legal subtitles, and they perceive a protest to have been "prohibited" as one that is in some vague sense "illegal" and police tend to police these assemblies very aggressively. The author of this website has been told by senior police officers that such assemblies are "unlawful assemblies." This is clearly incorrect, but senior police officers may direct their junior officers in accordance with that belief.
Just to repeat: the advantage of completing a Notice of Intention (sometimes called a Form 1 or a Schedule 1) is that you have a defence to any charges relating to obstructing vehicles or pedestrians, or the offence of unlawful assembly. More broadly, the police will see you as "cooperative" and might be less likely to be threatening or intimidating or to use unlawful violence. Of course, submitting a Notice of Intention does not mean that you are protected from other crimes - such as graffitiing, or breach of the peace, or damaging property (these are normally always criminal offences).
[practical point: some protest organisers in the past have refused to give a Notice of Intention to the police as a matter of principle. If the police subsequently find out that such protests are planned, the protest tends to be either ignored by the police or policed aggressively].
The practice
The completed Notice of Intention (or Form 1) can be served by "leaving it with any member of the police force" (s23(2) Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW). It is important to photocopy the Form 1 so you have a copy for your own records, and to get a receipt from the police officer that you give the Form 1 to. Some police officers say that you have to give the Form 1 to the police station nearest the protest point or to the Police Head Office. This is not correct. However, it might be easier just to do so in the first place.
Also, if the police oppose a Form 1 application by applying to the Supreme Court (and the police are successful), then the Supreme Court can award legal costs against the person who signed the Form 1. These costs can be thousands of dollars, so the person signing the Form 1 has to consider this before signing. The ability to award costs in this way has not been known to occur in relation to a protest situation (at least in the last 12 years). Some protest groups will get a person without any assets to sign the Form 1.
Such groups, however, will need to have confidence in the person who signs the Form 1. If the police contest the protest and make an application to the Supreme Court, or want to change terms on the Notice of Intention, then the person who signs the Form becomes the "star." Only the person who signs the Form can negotiate changes and only the person who signs the Form is held responsible (not the organising collective). The police, therefore, will sometimes put enormous pressure on such a person, such as phoning them a dozen times in one day, demanding that they sign "condition letters", visiting them at their home, etc, in order to get the person who signed the Notice of Intention to change march routes, agree to conditions, or to cancel rallies and protests altogether.
A charitable interpretation is that even very senior police officers are sometimes confused about this area of the law. The author of this website takes a more cynical view, as he has explained matters to senior police on numerous occasions. Additionally, the police can receive legal advice from the Crown Solicitors' Office.
While freedom of speech and political expression are an essential part of a democratic society, police on the day are more likely to focus on issues such as traffic disruption. Their educational and cultural milieu is such that they simply do not understand the importance of political dissent within a liberal-democratic context. Many police seem to see protesters as being similar to drunks causing havoc outside of a pub on a Friday night, and will adopt a similar attitude to both. An even less charitable interpretation is that the police are aware that they have limited legal powers in relation to protests, and they therefore wish to intimidate and bully protest organisers by harassing them.
If the police have said that they will oppose the protest going ahead and will be making an application to the Supreme Court, it is important to get legal advice as soon as possible. This is because it may only be a few days or a weekend between any indication that the police oppose a protest going ahead and appearing in the Supreme Court. The author of this website may be able to introduce you to lawyers who can assist. If this happens, contact the author on dalemills (at) cantab.net (I check my emails several times a day).
If you insist on having the protest, the police may decide that they won't go to the Supreme Court but may police the protest more aggressively. It is better to get police agreement, but sometimes the police insist on conditions that activists find unacceptable (see “Letters of Agreement” below).
How do you obtain "authorisation"?
To obtain authorisation (remember, it is an automatic authorisation) you need to give 7 days’ clear notice. The form that needs to be completed is a "Notice of Intention." A copy can be given to you by the police or can be found at Appendix 1 of the Summary Offences Regulation.
Filling in the form
The form requires details of the peaceful assembly or march, such as
- date of protest
- if it is a march, state the time at which it will commence, and a
proposed route
- the purpose of the protest
- an expected number of participants at the protest, etc.
The notice must be signed by the organiser of the protest and state their address (a business address will do). Sometimes, the Form will be signed by “the XYZ protest committee.” The police sometimes don’t object to this.
The bottom of the "Notice of Intention" says that "I take responsibility for organising and conducting the proposed assembly." It is not clear what this means, if anything, apart from the fact that a person can be directed to not further organise the assembly if the Supreme Court so orders. Sometimes, the police will say that this means that the organiser has to help the police catch people who commit trivial criminal offences during the protest. This is another example of "legal advice" that the police simply make up to intimidate people. [technical legal point: for serious crimes, note s316 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).]
Giving less than 7 days’ clear notice to the police
A procedure exists where it is possible to get a peaceful assembly "authorised" if you give less than 7 days' notice. You can still give a Notice of Intention to the police, but this time they have the discretion to say that they don’t approve of it. If that happens, it is possible to apply to the Supreme Court for an order. The author of this website does not believe that this has happened at any time in the last 12 years.
If the law is not on your side, and you are giving less than 7 days' notice, then it is worth considering whether you should negotiate with the police. Remember, the vast majority of protests go ahead without any incident. The police only tend to pretend to have powers they don't have when there is a legal conflict between the protest organisers and the police. Therefore, it's better not to be overly aggressive in your negotiations if the law is not on your side. A good example of protests held at a day or two days' notice included Tamil protests in Sydney during 2010-2011, where the police facilitated protests at very short notice.
Protesting at Town Hall Square
"Town Hall Square" is the space between Sydney Town Hall and St. Andrew's Cathedral. It is a common starting point for rallies and marches and is formally known as Sydney Square. See protesting at special places for more information about protesting at Town Hall Square.
What is the likelihood of the police taking the matter to the Supreme Court?
It is rare for the police to seek a Supreme Court "prohibition" order. They are more likely to say “we won't allow it” or "that's not going to happen." The officer who says this is likely to be a Sergeant from the Traffic Division. They are well aware of the basic law in relation to protests. Simply point out that you know that the police have no power to prohibit a peaceful assembly and they have to apply to the Supreme Court if they wish to do so. This is especially the case since the Supreme Court case of Langosch (see below). If the police continue to oppose the assembly going ahead, consider contacting the author of this website at dalemills (at) cantab.net for more information.
Langosch
The latest and most important Supreme Court decision in relation to the Notice of Intention procedure is Langosch. The decision of Langosch can be found here. Sydney activist Patrick Langosch signed a "Notice of Intention" Form to hold a protest on behalf of the Al-Nakba Planning Committee for a protest on 15 May 2012 at Sydney Town Hall. The protest was planned for a Friday evening and involved a march through some of Sydney’s busiest streets.
The police opposed the protest going ahead for reason normally raised by the police: that the protest going ahead presented a danger to the safety of protestors and pedestrians, the protest’s interference with traffic, its disruption to train and bus transport and the inconvenience to tens of thousands of commuters. One police officer even gave affidavit evidence saying that he had fears - if the protest went ahead - of the protest leading to “serious injury or death.”
The police also pointed out that Town Hall Square (more technically known as Sydney Square, in between St. Andrew’s Cathedral and Sydney Town Hall) was mostly privately owned, and that the protesters could have their protest at another time if they wished (but not Friday peak hour).
Despite the strong police objections, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the protests, and the protest went ahead. The Judge said that
- it was reasonable for protesters to commemorate a fixed day (May 15) even if that
occurred on a weekend.
- that despite the fact that “the initial assembly is to occur at 5.30 pm and the mobile
- part of the assembly is to go from 7.00 to 8.15 pm. It will take place in a crowded area in the Central Business District of Sydney
in the vicinity of major (though narrow) roads and of one of the most significant railway stations in the city. It will double-
back along George Street, which has perhaps more bus routes than any other road in Sydney,” it was acceptable to the
Court for the protest to go ahead.
- that “Town Hall Square is one of the few places available in Central Sydney for public assembly and is, accordingly, a natural
choice.”
- and that “public facilities are to be shared. It is of the nature of a protest that others will be affected and that their routines will be,
at least ephemerally, interrupted.”
Langosch is a high-water mark in protecting the rights of protesters, as it deals with many of the objections that the police normally raise (disruption to traffic, etc).
Earlier cases are useful to read to understand the background to the Langosch decision.
Previous cases include:
- Commissioner of Police v Vranjkovic (unreported, 1980 NSW BC8000050 27 November 1980), which involved a planned protest by
the Croatian National Council against the Yugoslav Government, outside the Yugoslav Consulate in Woollahra. This decision
discussed the role of a feared “breach of the peace” as well as confirming that a “prohibition order” did not make a subsequent
protest – in itself – illegal.
- Commissioner of Police v Rintoul, which involved the Refugee Action Coalition protesting outside the personal home of the then
Minister for Immigration, Phillip Ruddock. The Court in its decision emphasised the “very limited nature' of the 7-days Notice
procedure.”
- Commissioner of Police v Gabriel was a 2004 case also discussed these issues.
A summary of the above cases was given by the Crown (acting on behalf of the police) in Langosch. A copy of the Crown's legal submission to the Supreme Court in Langosch can be found here:
| langsoch_submissions_for_commissioner_of_police.doc |
