Sydney Protests: Policing Expert Criticises ‘Disappointing’ Response & Alleged Violence

Sydney, Australia – A policing expert who participated in Monday’s rally protesting the visit of Israeli President Isaac Herzog has described the police response as “disappointing,” alleging that violent clashes could have been avoided. The criticism comes as New South Wales Premier Chris Minns defended the actions of officers, characterizing them as “proportionate” despite footage emerging showing protesters being punched and subjected to pepper spray at close range.

Luke McNamara, a law professor at the University of New South Wales, attended the demonstration outside Town Hall to oppose Herzog’s Australian tour. He argued that the violence was a “direct consequence” of what he termed “unreasonable conditions” imposed by the government, which he said had 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,” McNamara said. “Those events are likely never to have happened if police had permitted, indeed if the government had permitted, protesters to exercise their lawful right to protest.”

The premier’s defense of the police response stands in contrast to the concerns raised by McNamara and other observers. Minns stated that officers were “repeatedly confronted” by individuals attempting to breach the containment line and cautioned against judging their actions based on “15-second social media posts” without full context. This justification has done little to quell the growing scrutiny of the police’s tactics.

McNamara, specializing in law and justice, emphasized that police should reserve the use of physical force for situations where a crowd is demonstrably out of control and posing an immediate threat of violence. “That’s not what happened [on Monday] night,” he asserted. He specifically cited footage depicting a man repeatedly punched by police and a group of Muslims engaged in prayer being “dragged away” by officers, questioning the necessity of such force in both instances. “My response as someone who was there participating in a peaceful protest, exercising my right, a peaceful assembly, my rights to express my political views, I was really disappointed that that occurred in a highly restricted environment, where the police were a really significant presence,” he added. “I’m disappointed that we’ve got to the point in New South Wales where protesters are expected to exercise their rights under such strict and unfair conditions.”

Adding to the chorus of concern, Associate Professor Dr. Vicki Sentas, another policing expert at UNSW, described the available footage as depicting “a case study in disturbing and unnecessary police violence.” She also raised concerns about “poor and dangerous crowd control” during the protest. Sentas indicated that, while each incident requires individual review, the overall police response did not appear to meet the legal criteria for lawful use of force, suggesting the possibility of “credible allegations of excessive police force” warranting investigation by the NSW Law Enforcement Conduct Commission (Lecc).

The legal framework governing the use of force by NSW police, as outlined in the police use of force manual, emphasizes that force should be employed “only when reasonably necessary” and that officers must be able to justify its use. The manual explicitly states that force should not be used as a form of punishment. A redacted version of this manual was released by the Lecc in 2021.

Vincent Hurley, a former senior detective with NSW police, offered a more nuanced perspective, suggesting the need to examine the events leading up to the clashes. “I would want to see what happened in the ‘30 seconds before’ each clip of the violent clashes shared online before determining whether the use of force was excessive,” Hurley, now a criminology lecturer at Macquarie University, stated. He acknowledged the challenging circumstances faced by officers, describing the situation as “incredibly complex” and a “no-win situation for anybody.”

The debate over the appropriate level of force extends to the specifics of its application. The NSW police manual on pepper spray, released under freedom of information laws in 2021, permits its use for “protection of human life,” as a “less than lethal option” in situations involving violent resistance and for protection against animals. The manual also addresses “weaponless control” techniques, including punches and strikes, which are intended to achieve compliance or distraction.

A 2018 case involving NSW police officers and a 16-year-old boy highlighted the complexities of assessing the reasonableness of force. Four officers were involved in an incident where the youth was tasered, pepper-sprayed, and repeatedly struck with a baton. One officer faced a common assault charge related to six of the 18 baton strikes, with the prosecution arguing that his judgment had been impaired by “a red mist of rage.” The court ultimately cleared the officer, but the case underscores the subjective nature of assessing force in dynamic situations.

The events in Sydney raise broader questions about the balance between maintaining public order and protecting the right to peaceful protest. The restrictions placed on the demonstration, and the subsequent clashes between police and protesters, have ignited a debate about the appropriate limits of police power and the extent to which authorities should accommodate dissent. The incident is likely to fuel further discussion about police accountability and the need for clear guidelines on the use of force in protest situations.