Black Lives Matter, Wollongong: Protest banned in Supreme Court
NSW Police have won a court bid to block a NSW Black Lives Matter rally but organisers have vowed to host the illegal rally anyway with some joking after the defeat “they can’t arrest all of us”.
Illawarra Star
Don't miss out on the headlines from Illawarra Star. Followed categories will be added to My News.
- Terrifying moment shark ‘chases’ teens caught on video
- Murder charges dropped following fatal Albion Park crash
NSW Police have won a court bid to block a Black Lives Matter rally planned for Wollongong to avoid the “extreme” and “avoidable” risk of a potentially fatal outbreak.
But organisers have vowed to host the illegal rally anyway with some joking after the defeat “they can’t arrest all of us”.
“More than 850 people have indicated online they’re interested in attending the rally which was slated to go ahead at 1pm on Saturday in Wollongong’s Crown Street Mall amphitheatre.
The court heard police are expecting about 500 to turn up”
But NSW Police, on Thursday afternoon, launched legal action summoning organiser Vinil Kumar of the National Union of Students to the NSW Supreme Court.
Mr Kumar’s barrister, Tom Brennan SC, told the court the right to protest was essential to democracy.
He pointed out the public were allowed to use the public space for “buying jeans” which he said was clearly not essential if appropriate social distancing was in place.
He said the match, down to Lang Park, was in a spacious enough area to make it comparably safe.
“Your Honour will conclude there is some level of risk in public assembly but it is low,” he said.
But Justice Julia Lonergan said it was difficult to accept the protest was an essential gathering “during a COVID pandemic” that had the potential to infect many and kill some.
“You don’t gather with the other 30 to 40 people on the ground floor of a Westfield to shout things and march together,” she said, adding the protest was more like a religious service, a funeral or wedding than shopping.
The lawyers for NSW Police and the Commissioner told the court Mr Kumar had not taken his meeting with police seriously because, they say, he told officers he’d host the protest regardless of their approval.
The court heard he’d made no efforts to outline his COVID precautions until after their meeting and his defiance showed he couldn’t be trusted to use his “best endeavours” to implement the strategies.
The judge found Mr Kumar was a very well intentioned person and the issues were of “searing importance” to Australia.
But his inability to control the numbers, prevent the sick from attending and the impossibility of detecting asymptomatic carriers meant the risk was just too high and the right to public assembly needed to be deferred.
She granted the commissioner’s request to prohibit the gathering.
The rally organisers immediately sent out a second defiant message following the prohibition – they would hold the rally anyway but at McCabe Park.
“No justice no peace,” Organiser Trish Levett said in the statement.
“You won’t keep us quiet. We need to be the voices of those that were murdered in custody, that have gone home to the dreaming, who cannot rest until they have justice. Black lives matter.”
They decided the decision as an attack on free speech.
Outside the court some young supporters jokingly compared the plan to host the rally as the planned raid on Area 51 that never eventuates.
“They can’t arrest us all,” one laughed.
“There aren’t enough cops.”
The police legal team said they wanted the protesters to pay their legal bill if the judge ruled against the protest.
But Mr Brennan said it was not typical for this type of legal proceedings and warned it may create a “powerful incentive” for future organisers not to seek approval from police before launching protests.
“There is clearly an element of public interest,” he said.
“My client doesn’t bring (his case) in his personal interest but in the interest of those who seek to agitate the Black Lives Matter issues.”
The judge agreed with him, refusing the request for costs.
The protest’s solicitor, Stephen Blanks, told The Daily Telegraph he felt an appeal was unlikely.
The court heard Mr Kumar is from Sydney’s inner west, not Wollongong, and had organised a protest with 1500 people in attendance a fortnight ago.
Justice Lonergan concluded that, plus his social media callouts for the protest, meant it made it impossible to discount some of the protesters descending on Wollongong would actually be from Sydney.
That was significant when taken in the context of evidence given to the court by NSW Chief Medical Officer Kerry Chant who said the risk of spread was exponentially higher when otherwise separate communities gather in one place.
The prohibition means those who gather at the protest may be charged for violating the COVID-19 public health orders.