Sydney Police Violence at Anti-Herzog Protest Deemed 'Disturbing' by Experts
Footage from a Sydney rally against Israeli President Isaac Herzog's visit has sparked outrage, showing New South Wales police officers repeatedly punching protesters and deploying pepper spray at close range. The incident occurred outside Town Hall in the CBD on Monday, during a demonstration opposing Herzog's Australian tour. Policing experts have labelled the police response as "disturbing" and "disappointing", arguing that violent clashes could have been avoided.
Government Conditions Blamed for Escalation
Dr Luke McNamara, a policing expert from the University of NSW's law faculty who attended the rally, asserted that the violence was "the direct consequence" of unreasonable conditions imposed by the Minns government. These restrictions granted police enhanced move-on powers and effectively banned protesters from marching from Town Hall to state parliament, confining them within a police containment line. McNamara stated, "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 emphasised that if protesters had been permitted to exercise their lawful right to protest, the events likely would not have occurred.
McNamara highlighted specific instances from the footage, including a man being repeatedly punched in the body by police and a group of praying Muslims being "dragged away" by officers. He argued that there appeared to be no justification for such force, noting that physical intervention should only be used "extremely rarely" in protests, specifically when a crowd is out of control and perpetrating or threatening violence.
Premier Defends Police Actions
In contrast, Premier Chris Minns defended the police response on Tuesday, calling it "proportionate". He explained that officers were "repeatedly confronted" by individuals attempting to breach the containment line and cautioned against judging them based on "15-second social media posts" without full context. However, Associate Professor Dr Vicki Sentas, another policing expert at UNSW, countered this view, describing the available footage as "a case study in disturbing and unnecessary police violence." She expressed concern over poor and dangerous crowd control and suggested that the overall response did not meet legal criteria for lawful use of force.
Legal Scrutiny and Manual Guidelines
Sentas called for an investigation by the NSW police watchdog, the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission (LECC), citing credible allegations of excessive police force. The NSW police use of force manual, though not publicly available, was published in 2023 by the LECC. It stipulates that officers "should use no more force than is reasonably necessary" and must justify any force used, explicitly prohibiting its use for punishment. A redacted manual on pepper spray, released under Government Information Public Access laws in 2021, permits its use for protection of human life or as a less-than-lethal option during violent confrontations.
Vincent Hurley, a former NSW police senior detective now lecturing in criminology at Macquarie University, noted the complexity of such situations. He stated, "It's incredibly complex and it's a no-win situation for anybody." While he acknowledged that on the surface, police might have believed their force was justified, he emphasised the need to review events in the 30 seconds before each clip to assess excessiveness.
Historical Context and Court Precedents
The manual also addresses "weaponless control" as an option, which can include punches or strikes for compliance or distraction, but encourages constant reassessment of force use. A recent court case from 2018, involving NSW police officers who tasered, pepper-sprayed, and repeatedly struck a 16-year-old boy, considered whether force was "reasonably necessary." The prosecution argued that the officer's judgment was clouded by "a red mist of rage," though the officer was later cleared of charges after claiming the strikes were a proportionate response for pain compliance.
This incident underscores ongoing debates about police conduct during protests, with experts urging greater adherence to legal standards and transparency in policing practices.
