BERITA BAHASA INDONESIA

Appearance (BETA) Follow system settings Select an optionAlways lightAlways darkFollow system settingsFind any issues using dark mode? Please let us know

There is a heavy police presence in the Sydney CBD for the protest. (ABC News: Digby Werthmuller)

The Palestine Action Group has lost its legal challenge against the extra powers given to police under a "major event" declaration made by the NSW government.

During the hearing lawyers for the protest group questioned whether the law was being used for its proper purpose.

The judge dismissed the case with his reasoning expected at a later date.

Link copiedShareShare articleProtesters have lost a legal challenge to the NSW government's decision to grant police expanded powers during the visit of Israeli President Isaac Herzog.

The Palestine Action Group launched a case in the state's Supreme Court on Sunday, after the visit was declared a "major event" by the government.

That gave police extended powers to manage crowd safety, maintain separation between opposing groups and reduce the risk of confrontation.

LIVE COVERAGE: Follow the latest on Isaac Herzog's visit to Sydney

It also meant that under the Major Events Act, people who fail to comply with police directions could face fines of up to $5,500.

During a hearing on Monday, lawyers for the protesters questioned whether the legislation was being used for its proper purpose, suggesting it usually applied to commercial events.

Thousands turned out for the protest in Sydney. (ABC News: Abubakr Sajid)

The State of NSW argued the declaration was aimed at ensuring public safety and said any impact on protests was secondary and incidental.

Justice Robertson Wright dismissed the protest group's case, saying his conclusions had not been reached easily or lightly.

During the hearing, barrister Peter Lange SC, representing the protest group, said the description of the visit as a major event was "not sufficient to amount to an event for the purposes of the Act".

He told the court an event is something which is "limited geographically, temporally and with regard to a group of participants, whether they be participants within the event itself or spectators".

"The Act is directed at particular events, usually … of a commercial kind," Mr Lange said.

He cited subsections of the law which speak to authorisation for electronic searches, bag checks and directions for people to produce tickets or permits.

There was an unreasonable "lack of specificity" in the major event declaration because it did not identify a group of participants, Mr Lange submitted, and the consequences included an infringement on freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.

Outlining a separate branch of the protesters' case, barrister Felicity Graham argued that the major event declaration was made for an improper purpose.

"The improper purpose is to affect or prevent the holding of public protests concerning the visit of the Israeli President, Isaac Herzog, in Sydney while he's in Australia," Ms Graham told the judge.

Isaac Herzog was invited by the governor-general and prime minister to join the Jewish community grieving the loss of life in the December 14 massacre of mostly Jewish Australians at a Hanukkah event.

Ms Graham said the declaration applied to an area where millions of people work, live and carry out their lives every day, arguing that even if the court accepted the exercise of expanded police powers would be reasonable, they remained "extraordinary, broad powers".

Ms Graham submitted that a "major event" cannot be declared in such broad terms as a "backdoor way of stopping protests during that time, in the general location, on account that it coincides with the presence of a controversial figure on Australian soil".

Counsel for the State of NSW, Brendan Lim SC, said when the major events legislation was enacted, it was expressly linked to a public interest test.

He said the evidence showed the declaration was made with a broader context, including the national terrorism threat, heightened community tensions and the need to safely manage potentially large crowds.

"That is not a purpose of suppressing protest, it is a purpose of securing safety," Mr Lim said.

He argued that the effect on protests was "secondary or incidental to" the security purpose of the declaration.

Mr Lim submitted that the idea of an alleged "improper purpose" was defeated by a "carve-out" which allowed Hyde Park, in the CBD, to be an alternative site of a gathering, as police have suggested.

"If there was a purpose of preventing protest, the police would not be inviting (the Palestine Action Group) to conduct a protest in Hyde Park and to march to Belmore Park."

Justice Wright will deliver reasons for his decision at a later date.

Copy linkFacebookX (formerly Twitter)Top StoriesProtests begin across Australia against Israel's presidential visitLIVE

Topic:Telecommunications Services Industry

Analysis by Laura Tingle

Topic:Telecommunications Services Industry

Analysis by Laura Tingle

The consequences of Takaichi's victory for Australia and the Asia-PacificLAnalysis by Laura Tingle

Topic:Telecommunications Services Industry

Topic:Government and Politics

This service may include material from Agence France-Presse (AFP), APTN, Reuters, AAP, CNN and the BBC World Service which is copyright and cannot be reproduced.

We acknowledge Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Australians and Traditional Custodians of the lands where we live, learn, and work.