NSW Police Bid Delays Inquiry Into Sydney Protest

Published: 08 October 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online.

New South Wales police faced criticism after the state’s police commissioner made a last-minute request for parts of an inquiry into a controversial Sydney protest to be conducted behind closed doors, a move that delayed the planned start of public hearings.

The Law Enforcement Conduct Commission has confirmed that its investigation into the February anti-Herzog protest at Sydney Town Hall will proceed this month, with a combination of public and private examinations. However, the watchdog’s chief commissioner, Peter Johnson SC, described the timing of the police commissioner’s request as “regrettable”, saying it disrupted preparations and delayed the efficient use of public resources.

The inquiry was launched following widespread allegations of excessive police force during the 9 February demonstration. The protest resulted in injuries to numerous demonstrators and 10 police officers. Among those injured were protesters in their 70s and 80s, while video footage circulated publicly appearing to show officers punching protesters and confronting Muslim worshippers during evening prayers.

The incident generated significant public concern and prompted questions about police planning, crowd-control tactics and the use of force during politically sensitive demonstrations.

The police watchdog, known as LECC, had initially planned to begin public hearings on 21 September. However, lawyers representing NSW Police Commissioner Mal Lanyon notified the commission on 9 September that he wanted to make submissions concerning whether the inquiry should be conducted publicly or privately.

The request came less than two weeks before the planned hearings were due to begin.

Johnson said the timing had caused significant disruption to the inquiry’s preparation. He said the late intervention affected the orderly progress of the investigation and created additional costs and delays for both the commission and the NSW Police Force.

As a result, the planned 21 September start date was postponed while the commission considered the police commissioner’s request.

Lawyers acting for Lanyon argued that opening submissions and witness examinations should be conducted privately rather than being livestreamed to the public. They questioned whether the commission had the legal authority to conduct broad public submissions while the investigation remained underway.

The police commissioner’s legal representatives also argued that beginning public examinations before the investigation was complete would represent an unusual approach to the inquiry process.

The commission disagreed.

Its counsel assisting argued that public examinations were appropriate because a substantial amount of information about the February protest was already publicly available, including footage showing police use of force. The counsel also pointed to public statements made by senior police officers about what happened during the demonstration.

The commission concluded that public scrutiny was particularly important because senior police officials had already advanced an official account of the events.

Johnson said public comments by senior officers increased the need for independent examination rather than reducing it.

The commission also highlighted the level of public concern surrounding the protest, including among sections of the Muslim community in western Sydney.

The revised inquiry schedule will begin with a public address by counsel assisting on 19 October. This will be followed by five weeks of private hearings focused largely on factual matters. Senior police officers are then expected to appear in public examinations dealing with broader systemic questions.

The distinction between the private and public stages reflects the watchdog’s decision that specific factual issues should initially be examined privately, while systemic issues surrounding policing practices should later be considered in public.

The inquiry, known as Operation Makalu, is expected to examine several aspects of the police response to the protest. These include the use of oleoresin capsicum spray, the exercise of arrest powers and the use of force against protesters.

Investigators will also examine how police planned for the demonstration and whether changes could improve the policing of future protests.

The inquiry comes amid continuing legal and political scrutiny of the February incident.

Thirty people were charged in the months following the protest, although four have since had their charges withdrawn. More than 20 people are expected to face a joint hearing next year.

The protest has also generated civil litigation. Palestinian Australian Eyad Shadid launched proceedings in the NSW District Court in September, alleging that police assaulted and battered him and falsely imprisoned him near Sydney Town Hall. His case also alleges misconduct in public office and malicious prosecution.

The allegations have not been determined by the court.

The dispute over the inquiry’s format has added another layer to the relationship between NSW Police and the state’s law enforcement watchdog.

At a parliamentary inquiry in May, Johnson said the police force had become increasingly defensive when responding to requests for information connected to LECC investigations. He described the relationship between the agencies as difficult and said the watchdog had received more than 800 complaints linked to its investigation of the Herzog protest.

The number of complaints has underscored the scale of public concern over the incident and placed additional pressure on authorities to provide a transparent account of what happened.

NSW Greens justice spokesperson Sue Higginson strongly criticised the attempt to conduct the hearings privately. She described the move as an effort to prevent public scrutiny of allegations involving police misconduct and the decisions made by senior officers before and during the protest.

Higginson argued that the public should be able to examine how police decisions were made and whether command structures contributed to the violence seen during the demonstration.

The police, however, have rejected suggestions that they have failed to cooperate with the watchdog. In an earlier response to Johnson’s criticism, NSW Police said it had complied with the requirements of the LECC Act and had cooperated with the commission.

Following the latest decision, police said they acknowledged the determination to conduct private hearings and would await the findings of the investigation.

The controversy has placed particular focus on the balance between transparency and procedural fairness in law enforcement investigations.

Police officers involved in controversial incidents can face serious reputational and legal consequences when allegations are aired publicly before all evidence has been examined. At the same time, public authorities exercising significant powers over protesters are expected to operate under strong systems of independent accountability.

The Sydney protest presents a particularly sensitive case because of the combination of political tensions, allegations of excessive force and the involvement of religious worshippers.

Footage from the demonstration became an important part of the public debate, with images appearing to show officers using physical force against protesters. Questions were subsequently raised about whether police tactics were proportionate and whether officers had been adequately prepared to manage the demonstration.

The LECC investigation is therefore expected to go beyond individual incidents and examine the broader decisions that shaped the police response.

Its findings could have implications for how NSW Police plans for future demonstrations, particularly protests involving large crowds, politically sensitive issues or heightened community tensions.

The decision to divide the inquiry between private factual examinations and later public consideration of systemic matters is intended to balance the need for a thorough investigation with the public interest in transparency.

For those who believe police accountability requires open scrutiny, the eventual public hearings will be closely watched. For the police force, the investigation provides an opportunity to respond formally to allegations and explain the operational decisions made during the protest.

The delayed start has already demonstrated the complexity of investigating police conduct when the events in question have generated extensive public debate and legal proceedings.

As the inquiry begins later this month, attention will turn to the evidence gathered by the watchdog and the testimony of officers involved in policing the demonstration.

The central questions will include whether police used force appropriately, whether arrest powers were exercised lawfully, whether crowd-control methods were justified and whether planning decisions contributed to the disorder.

The inquiry will also consider whether lessons can be learned to improve the policing of future protests.

For Sydney communities still affected by the events of February, the investigation represents an important test of public accountability. The decision to hold some proceedings privately may limit immediate transparency, but the later public examination of systemic issues is expected to provide a clearer picture of how the protest was handled.

Ultimately, the findings could influence not only the reputations of individual officers and senior commanders but also the wider relationship between NSW Police, protest communities and the independent bodies responsible for overseeing law enforcement.