Palestine, the protest, & The police - hannah thomas

The Israel - Palestine conflict draws high emotion, and staunch beliefs are delivered locally here in Australia in the form of protest. In this case, the policing of a protest in Sydney became a conflict in itself, and the eventual primary issue under the spotlight after local lawyer Hannah Thomas sustained a serious injury.

Assembly and police characterisation of the protest

27 June 2025

A group of approximately 60 pro-Palestinian protesters assembled outside SEC Plating in Belmore,

south-west Sydney. The protest concerned allegations that the company was involved in manufacturing components for F-35 fighter jets used by the Israel Defence Force, an allegation the company publicly denied.

At this initial stage, the primary legal question was whether the gathering constituted a lawful peaceful assembly or whether police were entitled to treat it as unauthorised under public order powers.

That classification decision became the foundational trigger for every legal issue that followed.

The protest was reported on the ground as small and non-violent, which later became relevant to proportionality and necessity assessments.

declaration of an 'unauthorised' protest and issuance of move-on directions

27 June 2025

NSW Police declared the protest unauthorised and issued move-on directions under state policing powers. This step engaged a second legal issue: whether the statutory preconditions for move-on powers were satisfied.

At law, move-on directions require a reasonable belief that police intervention is necessary to prevent obstruction, intimidation, risk to safety, or another specified harm. Whether those beliefs were lawfully formed would later underpin both criminal and civil scrutiny.

The issuance of directions marked the formal transition from political expression to enforcement action.

Enforcement action and use of force

27 June 2025

As police attempted to enforce the move-on directions, a physical confrontation occurred. Lawyer and activist Hannah Thomas was arrested during this process.

During the arrest, Thomas sustained a severe eye injury, later requiring surgical intervention. The injury was sufficiently serious that NSW Police declared a critical incident, activating internal investigation mechanisms.

This moment introduced the central operational law issue of the case: whether the force used during arrest was lawful, necessary and proportionate to the circumstances. That issue would later be examined through criminal law, civil liability and internal police accountability frameworks.

Criminal charges laid against protesters

Late June to July 2025

Following the incident, Thomas was charged with hindering or resisting police and failing to comply with a police direction. Three other protesters were similarly charged.

At this stage, the legal focus shifted to the legitimacy of the arrest itself. If the move-on directions were invalid, or if the arrest lacked reasonable grounds, the criminal charges were vulnerable from inception.

This stage crystallised the interaction between police operational decisions and prosecutorial responsibility.

Withdrawal of charges and judicial findings

September 2025

Prosecutors advised Bankstown Local Court that no further action would be taken against Thomas or the other defendants. The court found that the charges had been laid without reasonable cause, and Thomas was awarded nearly AU$22,000 in legal costs.

This outcome was legally significant. A finding that charges lacked reasonable cause is a threshold element for malicious prosecution claims and materially strengthened any subsequent civil proceedings.

At this point, the matter formally pivoted from criminal defence to civil accountability.

Criminal proceedings against the police officer

September to October 2025

A senior NSW Police constable involved in Thomas’s arrest was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and later with recklessly causing grievous bodily harm.

This introduced a parallel legal track in which the officer’s conduct would be judged under criminal standards, separate from internal disciplinary processes or civil liability.

The escalation of charges reflected judicial recognition of the seriousness of the injury and reframed the incident from a disputed arrest into a question of potential criminal wrongdoing by an officer exercising public power.

Legal considerations

9 October 2025 onward

Thomas commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales against the State of New South Wales and NSW Police. The claim alleges malicious prosecution, assault and battery, and misfeasance in public office.

These claims consolidate all earlier legal issues into a single civil narrative:

• Whether police powers were lawfully exercised.

• Whether enforcement decisions were made in good faith.

• Whether force was applied beyond lawful limits.

• Whether the criminal process was improperly used following the injury.

  
  

Beyond the parties, the case has become a reference point in public discourse around policing of peaceful protests, the scope of move-on powers, and accountability mechanisms when crowd control results in serious harm.

Commentary

Peter O’Brien, Principal Solicitor.

“Our client was lawfully exercising her right to protest. What followed was an unlawful arrest and a sequence of actions that should never have occurred in a democracy governed by principles of justice and accountability."

"We are seeking redress not only for Ms Thomas’s individual suffering, including the ongoing injury to her right eye, but also to uphold the broader principle that police powers must never be abused. The law must protect citizens, not endanger them.”

How the legal issues interlock

What distinguishes this matter is the way each legal issue compounds the next. The initial characterisation of the protest influenced the lawfulness of directions, which shaped the legality of arrest, which exposed the use of force, which undermined the criminal charges, which now grounds civil liability and criminal accountability.

The case now operates less as a single dispute and more as a procedural record of how police decision-making at the earliest operational stage can determine legal exposure across criminal, civil and public law domains.