Imagine being a 69-year-old woman, peacefully protesting, only to end up in the hospital with four broken vertebrae after a violent encounter with police. This is the shocking reality for Jann Alhafny, one of several Sydney protesters now seeking justice for alleged police brutality during a rally against Israeli President Isaac Herzog. But here’s where it gets complicated: their path to legal redress is far from straightforward, thanks to a little-known piece of legislation that shields the government from liability during so-called 'major events.'
Alhafny’s lawyer, Peter O’Brien, reveals that she is just one of at least seven protesters from the rally who have sought legal advice. The incident in question? A police officer allegedly pushed her down with such force that she suffered severe injuries. But this isn’t just about one woman’s ordeal—it’s about a broader pattern of alleged misconduct that has sparked outrage and legal challenges.
And this is the part most people miss: buried in the 2009 Major Events Act is Section 62, which states that compensation is not payable for actions taken by police officers during these events. Chris Minns’s government declared Herzog’s four-day visit a 'major event,' effectively granting police additional powers and immunity. The police even listed themselves as the 'promoter' of the visit, while protesters were dismissed as 'spectators.' Talk about a controversial move!
Felicity Graham, a barrister for the Palestine Action Group, argued in court that this was a blatant misuse of the Act—a 'square peg being shoved into a round hole.' Yet, the challenge was unsuccessful. O’Brien isn’t giving up, though. He plans to contest this designation again as part of Alhafny’s case, arguing that legislation shielding authorities from liability for criminal wrongdoing is inherently unlawful.
The protest itself turned chaotic after negotiations between demonstrators and police broke down. Officers used pepper spray and the highly contentious tactic of kettling to disperse the crowd. Alhafny described her terrifying experience to Guardian Australia, recounting how she was yanked to her feet so violently that the pain was excruciating. Meanwhile, a NSW police spokesperson claims they were unaware of the incident, though investigators are reviewing body camera and social media footage.
But here’s where it gets even more controversial: O’Brien is determined to pursue compensation, which can range from $5,000 to $100,000. However, Section 62’s restrictions on liability claims could make this an uphill battle. The law only allows claims for personal injury and requires that the police acted in 'good faith'—terms that are open to interpretation and will likely be fiercely debated in court.
This isn’t an isolated case. A viral video shared by Greens senator David Shoebridge shows a man, dubbed 'white shirt man,' being punched repeatedly by officers. Ali Al-Lami alleges he was racially abused and punched by an officer, while Kefah Maradweh’s 16-year-old son, Nedal, was reportedly pushed, kicked, and restrained by police. Even a Muslim man dragged away during evening prayers has sought legal advice, though NSW Police Commissioner Mal Lanyon has offered only a lukewarm apology.
Lawyers are now coordinating a collective legal response, gathering evidence and witnesses. But will it be enough? Sam Lee, a senior solicitor at the Redfern Legal Centre, points out that the Major Events Act hasn’t been tested in this way before. The court’s interpretation of 'good faith' and the circumstances surrounding each incident will be crucial. For instance, if a protester posed an immediate threat to an officer, the use of force might be deemed justified.
Here’s the burning question: Did the government intentionally use the major events declaration to stifle protests and limit legal recourse? Premier Minns denies this, but the fact that the tourism minister, not the police minister, approved the declaration raises eyebrows. Meanwhile, the combination of major event powers and post-Bondi public assembly restrictions has given police broad discretion to move people on, making legal challenges even tougher.
As the public debates short video clips of the incident, UNSW policing law expert Vicki Sentas warns that context matters—but in some cases, the evidence of excessive force seems undeniable. So, what do you think? Is this a justified use of police power, or a dangerous overreach? Let’s hear your thoughts in the comments!
