NSW Chief Justice Condemns Abbott’s Criticism of Harbour Bridge Protest Ruling
The Chief Justice of New South Wales, Andrew Bell, delivered a sharp rebuke to former Prime Minister Tony Abbott on Thursday, characterizing his critique of a judge’s decision regarding last year’s pro-Palestine march across the Sydney Harbour Bridge as “regrettable, misconceived and ignorant.” Bell argued that Abbott’s comments, made on X (formerly Twitter) in August, posed a threat to social cohesion and demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of the legal framework.
The controversy stems from Abbott’s response to a NSW Supreme Court ruling issued prior to the march, which drew an estimated 225,000 to 300,000 participants. Abbott had asserted that “it should not be for judges to decide when a political protest is justified,” framing the court’s involvement as an overreach of judicial power.
“The decision to close the Sydney Harbour Bridge to facilitate this protest is a political decision and should be made by elected and accountable ministers – who, it happens, think the march should not go ahead,” Abbott wrote at the time. “We are on a slippery slope when unelected judges start making political judgments.”
Speaking at a dinner marking the opening of the law term, Chief Justice Bell directly addressed Abbott’s post, stating it was based on a flawed premise. He clarified that Justice Belinda Rigg’s decision did not center on the justification of the protest itself. “The judge’s decision was not one concerning whether ‘a political protest was justified’—as any understanding of the statutory framework and case law set out in the judge’s reasons would have made plain to anyone who took the time to read it,” Bell explained to attendees.
Bell further emphasized that the judge did not independently order the closure of the Harbour Bridge. He pointed out that “the authorities had already taken the decision to close the harbour bridge in any event, irrespective of the judge’s decision,” a fact explicitly noted twice within the court’s judgment and crucial to the final outcome. He underscored that the court’s responsibility in the matter was explicitly delegated by the legislature, not an overstep of authority.
The Chief Justice maintained that Justice Rigg’s ruling was a careful balancing of free speech and public assembly rights, protected under common law and the constitution. He extended this reasoning to a subsequent Court of Appeal decision – over which he presided – that restricted a march towards the Sydney Opera House, characterizing it as a similar exercise in legal deliberation, not a “political decision.”
Bell’s criticism extended beyond Abbott’s comments, addressing a broader trend of “simplistic but frequently highly personal criticism” directed at judges in the media and on social media, particularly concerning bail decisions. He warned that such attacks, “often dashed ‘off the cuff’,” constitute misinformation that erodes public trust in the judiciary and the rule of law.
He revealed a disturbing consequence of this escalating rhetoric, stating that two Supreme Court judges who have been subjected to intense, personalized criticism have received death threats in the past 18 months, a development he described as “of grave concern.”
When contacted for a response, Abbott remained defiant. “Naturally, I stand by my comment,” he stated on Friday. “This is a separation of powers issue. Whether a political protest goes ahead or not should be a question for the executive government, not for judges.”
The exchange highlights a growing tension between political commentary and judicial independence, raising critical questions about the boundaries of public discourse and the protection of the legal system from undue influence.
