NSW Premier, Police Minister and Police Commissioner Subpoenaed to Appear at Anti-Herzog Trial

A moment of exaltation spread across New South Wales on Wednesday, 11 November 2026, when news spread that NSW premier Chris Minns and NSW police minister Yasmin Catley have been served subpoenas requiring them to testify at the trial of civilians who are being prosecuted in relation to the mass police brutalisation incident that was the protest against the visit of Isaac Herzog.

The subpoenas require a group of NSW cabinet ministers and senior police officers to appear before the NSW Local Court on 8 March 2027. Criminal defence lawyer Nick Hanna applied for the subpoenas that require the NSW premier and others to testify, so that they can be questioned on what he considers might have been “improper interference” in planning for the police operation.

The police violence occurred during the policing of the 9 February 2026 protest opposing the official state visit of Israeli president Isaac Herzog, during the ongoing Gaza genocide. NSW authorities opposed the demonstration, which could not march on the road as it sought to, as a since-struck-down “PARD law”  was actively prohibiting any protest marches through the Sydney CBD.

Despite countless video clips capturing NSW police officers unleashing with violent force upon protesters at the February rally, NSW police started arresting demonstrators in provocative ways, including dawn raids. And around 30-odd civilians were charged with crimes like assault police. But after the PARD law was revoked, many charges have been withdrawn, leaving 17 defendants.

The premier and police minister are required to testify at the trial of these defendants. This will take place just five days before the 13 March 2027 NSW state election. The subpoenas come after Minns and Catley have repeatedly refused to apologise for the police violence. And this move too appears as questions remain as to how police planned for the event, and whether the state was involved.

Required to appear

Hanna told the ABC on Wednesday that his legal team are keen to question the NSW premier, as he claims that Minns has been quiet open about his being involved in the preparation for the policing on the night of the anti-Herzog rally, and the solicitor further asserts that it’s likely such interference was improper, as this was a matter for law enforcement and it was not the charge of politicians.

The lawyer has further raised a comment that the NSW premier made in the days following the violence of the Herzog rally, which maintained that the NSW police officers on the night could not be blamed for “doing what we asked them to do, and that is to keep the people of New South Wales safe, protect mourners who were down at the ICC… on that evening.”

The federal government invited Israeli president Isaac Herzog to Australia in the wake of the Bondi Beach massacre, so he could mourn with Jewish Australians, and an event was taking place at the Sydney International Convention and Exhibition Centre, while the anti-Herzog protest was underway at Sydney Town Hall.

Along with Minns and Catley being summoned to the NSW Local Court, NSW tourism minister Steve Kamper, NSW police commissioner Mal Lanyon, assistant police commissioner Paul Dunstan and the chiefs of staff of the premier and the police minister have all been served subpoenas to appear in court next March, right before the state heads to an election.

Sydney Criminal Lawyers attended the anti-Herzog protest and bore witness to the police violence, which included police kettling in different sections of the crowd and horses charging protesters, which was followed by officers charging in, and this all appeared to be preplanned and coordinated. Officers further punched and wrestled protesters, whilst others covered them in pepper spray.

Heightened powers in use

The mass NSW police violence on display at the anti-Herzog rally and the reels of footage capturing it that were shared across multiple social media platforms are not the only issues that will be addressed at the criminal trial of the defendants charged over their own behaviour at the protest, as the legal frameworks that came into play that night will also be the subject of scrutiny.

The PARD law, or the public assembly restriction declaration, was a law that the Minns government rushed through parliament following the Bondi massacre, which banned streets protests in declared areas for up to 90 days, after an incident had been deemed an act of terrorism by the commissioner. And this law was struck down as unconstitutional by the NSW Supreme Court in April this year.

The PARD law factored into the anti-Herzog rally because NSW police would not let the crowd march to NSW parliament, due to the imposition of this law, which was ultimately found unlawful and to impose an illegitimate burden on the implied right to political communication. However, after it was struck down, the premier continued to justify its use, as he considers the state needed the power.

The other major set of powers in use that night were those contained in the Major Events Act 2009 (NSW), which were controversial because whether Herzog’s official visit should have been considered a major event was questionable. This gave NSW police heightened powers in which to deal with the crowd. And a prior court challenge to the use of the laws failed to prevent their application.

All of these questions that will now be involved in the trialling of the protesters who were arrested following the mass police violence are also being scrutinized at the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission’s inquiry into the incident, which is known as Operation Makalu, despite the premier opposing the watchdog inquiry and the police commissioner trying to prevent its public hearings.

Victims on trial

Not only did 500 NSW police officers unleash brutal force upon around 20,000 pro-Palestinian protesters in the vicinity of Sydney Town Hall last February, but after the event, NSW police proceeded to arrest multiple participants who partook in the demonstration. This followed the usual pattern of NSW police charging civilians that law enforcement has assaulted to cover it up.

Lanyon then announced on 13 May 2026, that all the charges pressed against 30-odd protesters were to be reviewed following the revoking of the PARD law, and this was on the same day that the first suspects had their charges dropped by the courts. And since this initial announcement, a number of other suspects have had their charges dropped at various times throughout the year.

At a pre-trial hearing in October, Hanna aired a 32-minute compilation of what was bodycam footage of the violence captured by police and civilian clips of the onslaught, which Hanna claimed displayed a pattern of police violence on the evening of 9 February. And perhaps, the most startingly clip is one that features an officer bragging to fellow officers about beating upon a civilian.

As it is, the NSW premier, the police minister and the police commissioner have all doubled down on their support of the conduct of NSW police officers on duty the night. The officials insist that these officers were just following orders. And Minns even refused to apologise for an incident that involved officers assaulting Muslim men who were praying on the ground beside Sydney Town Hall.

So, all eyes will be on Minns, Catley and Lanyon if they do come to testify before the court early next year, as the defence will be quite interested in hearing from the authorities about what those orders that officers were merely following consisted of, and further, how this conduct from the police can be justified by these officials when there’s ample proof of serious misconduct and excessive force.

Image: Chris Minns by NSW state is licensed under CC BY 4.0. Yasmin Catley official NSW Labor portrait. Mal Lanyon official NSW police image.