Twenty five anti-Isaac Herzog protesters to face joint trial in Sydney

Thirty people were charged after protesting against Isaac Herzog’s visit in February, pictured. Twenty five of those now face a joint trial in Sydney. Photograph: Flavio Brancaleone/EPA View image in fullscreen Thirty people were charged after protesting against Isaac Herzog’s visit in February, pictured. Twenty five of those now face a joint trial in Sydney. Photograph: Flavio Brancaleone/EPA Twenty five anti-Isaac Herzog protesters to face joint trial in Sydney New South Wales police commissioner Mal Lanyon is among the witnesses expected to appear at the six-week trial next July Twenty five people who were charged after they protested against the visit of the Israeli president will face a six-week joint trial next July. The protesters had their matters heard before Downing centre local court on Thursday after their lawyers made a successful application for the joint hearing after arguing there were common legal issues across the cases. Acting deputy registrar, Soly Najm, set down a week-long pre-trial hearing for 8 March 2027, and a six-week long trial beginning 19 July 2027. Felicity Graham, who was one of nine lawyers to appear on behalf of the protesters, told the court she expected police commissioner Mal Lanyon to be the first witness to be called. The court heard assistant police commissioner Paul Dunstan and Greens MPs Sue Higginson and Jenny Leong may also be called, and consideration was being given to other “ministers and members of parliament”. Thirty people were charged after protesting against Isaac Herzog’s visit to Australia at Sydney’s town hall in February, with police withdrawing charges against one of those protesters last month . The police response on the night of the protest is being investigated by the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission over allegations of police brutality . Twenty five of those charged applied for a joint trial, which was opposed by the police. Police prosecutor Sgt Adrian Walsh told the court it would create “significant issues” with witnesses given some were common to all 25 cases, but “a significant number” related to individual matters. Graham led the arguments on why there should be a joint hearing for the group. She argued the cases shared “common legal and factual issues”. This included, the court heard, allegations that the police engaged in an unlawful response to the protest because it was an authorised protest. At the time, the protest was considered by the police to be unauthorised because of a public assembly restriction declaration under a law that was passed after the Bondi terror attack, and which effectively banned protest marches in certain areas. That law was struck down in April by the court of appeal after it was found unconstitutional following a successful challenge by Blak Caucas and the Palestine Action Group. Graham argued the finding meant the protest was authorised given protesters had submitted a form one – a formal notice of intention to hold a public assembly – to police w