After a protest march over the Sydney Harbour Bridge sparked political backlash, NSW’s top judge has pushed back, defending the high-stakes decisions judges must make – and taking aim at a former prime minister’s misguided criticism.
Speaking at the Opening of Law Term Dinner last night (Thursday, 5 February), Chief Justice Andrew Bell (pictured) struck back at a former prime minister’s criticism, defending the difficult and high-stakes decisions judges make when navigating complex risk assessments, including the controversial protest march across the Sydney Harbour Bridge.
Bell CJ highlighted the immense responsibility judges carry, explaining that navigating complex risk assessments and legal considerations is a routine – but often demanding – aspect of their role across the legal landscape.
“Difficult and complex risk assessments are also required to be made by judges and magistrates in many other areas of the law, including in relation to proposed public protests under the Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW),” Bell CJ said.
To illustrate, Bell CJ pointed to the Harbour Bridge march, emphasising how Justice Belinda Rigg produced a closely reasoned judgment overnight – a striking example of the demanding and meticulous nature of judicial decision making.
“One example last year was the decision concerning the Harbour Bridge march. A detailed, closely reasoned and carefully considered judgment was produced overnight by Justice Rigg,” Bell CJ said.
However, Bell CJ noted that shortly after the judgment was delivered, former prime minister Tony Abbott took to social media to criticise the decision.
Abbott took to X and claimed that judges should not be making “political judgments”, insisting such decisions should rest with “elected and accountable ministers”, and warning that giving unelected judges this power risked creating a “slippery slope”.
Bell CJ rejected Abbott’s critique, outlining four key errors and highlighting the flaws in what he described as the former prime minister’s “misconceived” argument.
The first aspect that Bell CJ raised was that the judge’s decision in question 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”.
The second point Bell CJ highlighted was that the judge “didn’t make the decision to close the Sydney Harbour Bridge”, explaining that authorities had already decided the closure would go ahead regardless of the court’s ruling.
The third point he emphasised was that the court’s authority to make such decisions is “expressly” provided by legislation, stressing that Justice Rigg’s ruling “was not an unauthorised assumption of jurisdiction by ‘an unelected judge’, as the post might have suggested”.
The final point Bell CJ made was that the decision “was not a political judgment”, but rather reflected the “careful weighing” of legal rights against public safety concerns and practical realities.
Bell CJ also noted that legal experts have supported this stance, highlighting the Rule of Law Institute’s opinion piece in The Australian, titled “Judge doesn’t deserve criticism for decision to allow Sydney Harbour Bridge protest march”.
