On 11 May 2026 at the Roma Street arrest court the police prosecutor provided a statement of facts (QP9) following the arrest of a defendant on 18 April 2026 under the new laws concerning the phrase, ‘From the river████████████████████ [Redacted pursuant to Queensland Government directive, 2026.] Palestine will be free’. The defendant is partially deaf and did not hear the direction the police officer claimed to have given, which allegedly provided an opportunity to put the sign down. Furthermore, there was a significant amount of ambient noise because the police had just confiscated the protest’s speaking equipment.
Please note that Justice for Palestine Magandjin is not “an issue motivated group” as described in the police statement (QP9). The Not our Laws campaign is but one of many struggles taken up by JFP seeking peace and freedom for the Palestinian people. This is how the group describe their role in this particular campaign:
Justice for Palestine Magan-Djin/Brisbane is the Palestinian-led organisation in Brisbane at the centre of this fight. Any serious opposition to these laws needs Palestinian voices at its heart – and we need allies around us.
Queensland has passed laws that criminalise Palestinians and their supporters for speaking about genocide. These laws were not designed to keep Queenslanders safe. These absurd and dangerous laws were designed to silence Palestinian voices and protect a foreign government from criticism while it commits genocide. – JFP
JFP is challenging the laws in the High Court because they take away the implied right of political expression in the constitution.
Unlawful arrest
Police allege the defendant was publicly displaying a sign containing the expression: ‘From the river████████████████████ [Redacted pursuant to Queensland Government directive, 2026.] Palestine will be free’
Police officer claims he provided a verbal warning and gave the defendant an opportunity to put the sign down. The defendant did not hear those warnings. Police claim they arrested the defendant for publicly displaying a prohibited expression. The prosecution narrative appears to be:
- that the conduct was continuing
- that the defendant knowingly persisted
- that arrest became operationally necessary
Confiscation of speaking equipment
In Queensland, when police seize property, they are generally expected to provide a receipt, a notice of seizure, or an itemisation of the property taken under relevant police powers legislation and standard operating procedures.
The police specifically told a witness that they had itemised the confiscated items, when in fact they had not. Police simply never produced a list of the confiscated equipment. Furthermore, the police failed to inform me, the operator, of what they were confiscating and the reasons for doing so, though they returned the equipment after the rally was over.
Ian Curr
13 May 2026