Sydney, February 10, 2026 — A policing expert who participated in Monday’s protest against Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s visit has criticized the police response as “disappointing,” alleging that violent clashes with demonstrators could have been avoided. The criticism comes as footage emerges showing officers using force against protesters, sparking a debate over police tactics and the right to peaceful assembly.
The clashes raise questions about the balance between security and the freedom to protest, particularly when demonstrations involve sensitive political issues.
- Law professor Luke McNamara, who attended the protest, argues that restrictive government conditions contributed to the escalation of tensions.
- Premier Chris Minns defended the police response as “proportionate,” citing attempts to breach a police containment line.
- Concerns have been raised about the use of force, including instances of protesters being punched and pepper-sprayed.
- Experts are questioning whether the police response met legal standards for lawful use of force.
What are the legal limits on police force during protests? Police are legally obligated to use force only when necessary to control a crowd that is out of control or posing an immediate threat of violence. The NSW Police use of force manual, though not publicly available, emphasizes using “no more force than is reasonably necessary” and avoiding punishment.
Law professor Luke McNamara, of the University of NSW’s faculty of law and justice, attended the protest outside Town Hall to oppose Herzog’s Australian tour. Video footage circulating online shows officers repeatedly punching protesters and deploying pepper spray at close range. McNamara contends the violence was a “direct consequence” of what he described as “unreasonable conditions” imposed by the government, effectively confining protesters within a police perimeter.
“When some of those present decided to push the limits of the police willingness to allow them to engage in a procession, it seems to me that’s when the confrontation started,” McNamara said. “Those events are likely never to have happened if police had permitted, indeed if the government had permitted, protesters to exercise their lawful right to protest.”
McNamara emphasized that police should reserve physical force for situations where a crowd is genuinely out of control or threatening violence. “That’s not what happened [on Monday] night,” he stated. He specifically cited footage showing a man repeatedly punched in the body by police and a group of Muslims being “dragged away” while praying, questioning the necessity of such force.
“My response as someone who was there participating in a peaceful protest, exercising my right, a peaceful assembly, my rights to express my political views, I was really disappointed that that occurred in a highly restricted environment, where the police were a really significant presence,” McNamara added. “I’m disappointed that we’ve got to the point in New South Wales where protesters are expected to exercise their rights under such strict and unfair conditions.”
Premier Chris Minns on Tuesday characterized the police response as “proportionate” and defended the restrictions that granted police enhanced move-on powers and effectively prohibited a march from Town Hall to state parliament. He asserted that officers were “repeatedly confronted” by individuals attempting to breach the containment line and cautioned against judging their actions based on “15-second social media posts” without considering the full context.
Associate Professor Dr. Vicki Sentas, another policing expert at UNSW, described the available footage as depicting “a case study in disturbing and unnecessary police violence.” She also expressed concern about “poor and dangerous crowd control.”
‘Lawful Use of Force’ Questioned
Sentas acknowledged that each incident requires individual review, but maintained that the overall police response appeared to fall short of legal standards for lawful use of force. She indicated there were “credible allegations of excessive police force” and suggested an investigation by the NSW police watchdog, the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission (Lecc), would be appropriate.
The NSW police use of force manual, outlining guidelines for deploying weapons like pepper spray and “hands on” policing techniques, is not publicly available. However, a redacted copy was published by the Lecc in 2023. The manual states officers “should use no more force than is reasonably necessary to exercise your policing functions” and emphasizes personal accountability for any force used, explicitly prohibiting its use as punishment.
Vincent Hurley, a former NSW police senior detective and current criminology lecturer at Macquarie University, suggested a need to examine the events leading up to the clashes. “I would want to see what happened in the ‘30 seconds before’ each clip of the violent clashes shared online before determining whether the use of force was excessive,” he said.
“It’s incredibly complex and it’s a no-win situation for anybody,” Hurley said. “On the surface of it … I think I can see how the police believed they were justified in using that force.”
A 2021 freedom of information release included a redacted NSW police manual on pepper spray, outlining its use for “protection of human life,” controlling violent individuals, and protecting against animals. The manual also details “weaponless control” techniques, which can include punches or strikes intended to achieve compliance or distraction.
The manual emphasizes the importance of constantly reassessing the use of force. “By the nature of their duties, police put themselves in harm’s way… You must do so with professionalism and integrity, treating people with decency and respect.”
‘A Red Mist of Rage’
A 2018 court case examined the reasonableness of police force. Four NSW officers were involved in an incident where a 16-year-old was tasered, pepper-sprayed, and repeatedly struck with a baton. One officer was charged with common assault after six of the 18 baton strikes were deemed “not reasonably necessary.”
The prosecution argued the officer’s judgment was clouded by “a red mist of rage,” a loss of self-control stemming from frustration and anger. The officer maintained the strikes were a proportionate response to the youth’s outburst, who was drug-affected, and aimed to gain control through “pain compliance.” The officer was later acquitted.
– Additional reporting: Ariel Bogle and Nick Visser
