The short version
- Two Indigenous mothers settled a trespass lawsuit against New South Wales police just weeks before a scheduled supreme court trial.
- The case centered on allegations that officers conducted over two hundred unauthorized bail compliance visits, often during the night, causing significant distress to families.
- While police defended the checks as lawful safety measures, a state commission report criticized the reliance on weak legal principles for such actions.
A legal dispute between New South Wales police and two Indigenous mothers has concluded with a confidential settlement, resolving allegations of excessive and unauthorized surveillance. The case, which was initiated in April 2024, was finalized three weeks before it was set to proceed to trial in the state’s supreme court. The resolution marks the end of a prolonged conflict that highlighted tensions between law enforcement practices and the rights of Aboriginal families in Australia.
The lawsuit was brought by two single mothers, identified by the pseudonyms Megan and Joanne for privacy reasons. Their legal challenge focused on the frequency and manner in which police officers visited their residences to conduct bail compliance checks on their sons. According to court documents and statements from the complainants, these visits were not merely occasional but occurred with such regularity that they disrupted daily life and caused significant psychological stress.
Megan, who resides in regional New South Wales, reported that officers attended her home more than 150 times over a twenty-month period. Her sons had been released on bail at the ages of eleven and thirteen after being found as passengers in a stolen vehicle. The visits frequently took place between midnight and four in the morning, involving tactics such as banging on doors, shining torches through windows, and entering through back gates. Megan described these encounters as frightening and noted that the resulting exhaustion caused her children to miss school.
Joanne, living in western Sydney, faced a similar pattern of intrusion. Police conducted more than ninety bail checks at her home over eighteen months. In some instances, officers performed three separate checks within a few hours. She emphasized that these late-night disruptions often occurred on school nights, leaving her youngest daughter too fatigued to attend classes the following morning. The cumulative effect of these visits was described as deeply unsettling for the entire household.
The legal argument presented by the Justice and Equity Centre, which represented Megan, contended that many of these bail checks were conducted without proper court authorization. Under New South Wales legislation, courts can authorize police to visit private residences to ensure compliance with bail conditions. However, the lawyers argued that the sheer volume and nature of the visits exceeded this authority, constituting trespass. The case sought to establish that such unchecked power infringed upon the families’ rights.
New South Wales police maintained that their officers acted lawfully throughout the period in question. A spokesperson for the force stated that bail compliance checks are a critical tool for maintaining public safety and managing risks associated with releasing individuals during ongoing court proceedings. The department emphasized the importance of these measures in ensuring that those on bail adhere to their conditions, framing the visits as necessary rather than intrusive.
Despite the police defense, a report released in 2025 by the state’s Law Enforcement Conduct Commission cast doubt on the legality of some practices. The commission found that police were stretching their authority by relying on a weak legal principle to conduct bail checks without explicit court authorization. This finding provided significant weight to the arguments made by the mothers’ legal team, suggesting that the force had overstepped its bounds in numerous instances.
Kate Sinclair, the solicitor representing the complainants, praised the courage of her clients for pursuing the case against a powerful institution. She noted that the mothers acted not only for their own families but also for their broader communities. The settlement, while confidential, represents a significant moment in the ongoing dialogue about police accountability and the treatment of Indigenous Australians.
Beyond the trespass claim, Megan and her sons have separately filed a federal court case alleging racial discrimination. They argue that the boys were targeted specifically because they are Aboriginal, suggesting that the intensity of the police scrutiny was driven by bias rather than objective risk assessment. This parallel legal action underscores the deeper systemic issues at play, extending beyond individual incidents to broader patterns of policing.
The resolution of the trespass case does not erase the impact on the families involved. Megan expressed concern that while her eldest son now feels more confident in his rights, he still lives with fear regarding potential police interactions. The damage caused by years of intrusive surveillance may take considerable time to heal, and rebuilding trust between these families and law enforcement remains a significant challenge. The case serves as a stark reminder of the human cost of aggressive policing strategies.
Sources behind this briefing
Go to the original reporting
- The Guardian World↗NSW police settle trespass case after visiting Indigenous children’s home 150 times in 20 months
