The police response at a recent Sydney rally against the Israeli president’s visit has been described as 'disturbing' and 'disappointing' by experts, raising serious questions about the use of force.
But here's where it gets controversial: While many are quick to judge based on brief video clips, the full context and the underlying reasons for the police actions are being debated.
Luke McNamara, a law professor who was present at the protest outside Sydney's Town Hall, voiced his strong disapproval of the police's handling of the situation. He believes that the violent confrontations that occurred could have been avoided. Professor McNamara, who attended the rally to voice opposition to Israeli President Isaac Herzog's Australian tour, witnessed footage showing police officers engaging in physical altercations with protesters, including repeated punches and the close-range use of pepper spray. He argued that the police's actions were a direct consequence of the 'unreasonable conditions' imposed by the government, which he felt effectively confined protesters within a police containment line. "When some of those present decided to push the limits of the police willingness to allow them to engage in a procession, it seems to me that’s when the confrontation started," he stated. He further suggested that these events might never have transpired if the government had allowed protesters to exercise their lawful right to protest.
Professor McNamara, who teaches at the University of NSW’s faculty of law and justice, emphasized that police should resort to physical force only in exceptional circumstances, specifically when a crowd is unmanageable and posing or threatening violence. He explicitly stated that this was not the case on the night in question. He recounted witnessing footage of a man being repeatedly punched and a group of Muslims being 'dragged away' by officers while they were praying, finding no justification for such a level of force.
In contrast, Premier Chris Minns defended the police response as 'proportionate', highlighting what he described as protesters repeatedly attempting to breach the containment line. He urged against judging officers based on short social media clips, advocating for a broader understanding of the full context of each incident. And this is the part most people miss: The premier also defended controversial restrictions that granted police enhanced move-on powers and effectively prevented protesters from marching from Town Hall to the state parliament.
Associate Professor Dr. Vicki Sentas, another policing expert from UNSW, described the available footage as a 'case study in disturbing and unnecessary police violence'. She also expressed concerns about 'poor and dangerous crowd control'. While acknowledging that each incident requires individual review, Dr. Sentas indicated that the police response did not appear to meet the legal criteria for lawful use of force. She pointed to 'credible allegations of excessive police force' and suggested that the NSW police watchdog, the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission (Lecc), should conduct an investigation.
Here's a point that might spark debate: The NSW police use of force manual, which details when and how officers can use weapons and physical force, is not publicly accessible. However, a copy was published by the Lecc in 2023. The manual clearly states that police 'should use no more force than is reasonably necessary' and that officers are 'personally responsible for any force you use and must be able to justify it'. It also explicitly forbids the use of force for 'infliction of punishment'.
Vincent Hurley, a former NSW police senior detective and now a criminology lecturer at Macquarie University, suggested that a full understanding of the events would require examining the '30 seconds before' each viral clip. He described the situation as 'incredibly complex and a no-win situation for anybody', but conceded that, on the surface, he could understand how police might have felt justified in their actions. He added, "On the surface of it … I think I can see how the police believed they were justified in using that force."
What do you think? Was the police response justified given the circumstances, or was it an overreach of authority? Share your thoughts in the comments below. Do you believe the restrictions on protest marches contribute to confrontations, or are they necessary for public order?
