Magistrate Condemns 'Criminal' Defacing of Sea Cliff Bridge in Protest
An aspiring teacher from Wollongong has faced strong judicial criticism after defacing the iconic Sea Cliff Bridge during a pro-Palestine protest march, with a magistrate describing his actions as 'really criminal' and 'destructive'.
Court Appearance and Guilty Plea
Edward Max Morrison, a 22-year-old university student, appeared in Wollongong Local Court on Tuesday, supported by his parents. Dressed in an olive-green suit, Morrison pleaded guilty to intentionally marking premises without consent during the protest event.
The court heard that Morrison participated in a protest hosted by the Wollongong Friends of Palestine on December 7, 2025, at the Sea Cliff Bridge in Clifton. During the afternoon demonstration, Morrison spray-painted four areas of the bridge structure.
Graffiti Details and Clean-up Consequences
The graffiti included messages such as 'FREE PALESTINE' and 'FROM THE RIVER TO THE SEA', along with a depiction of the Palestinian flag. Morrison had not obtained consent from any authorised person to mark the barriers, which subsequently required professional repainting to cover the damage.
After images from the protest circulated on social media platforms, Morrison voluntarily presented himself to police on December 10. While in custody at Wollongong police station, he admitted to creating the four markings on the bridge structure.
Legal Defence and Judicial Response
Solicitor Analise Ritchie told the court that Morrison is 'a man who empathises with the suffering of others', suggesting his actions represented a misguided attempt to raise awareness or show solidarity. However, she acknowledged that her client had 'reflected meaningfully' since the incident and recognised the 'destructive and counter-appropriate' nature of his conduct.
Magistrate Gabriel Fleming delivered a stern assessment of the damage caused to the popular tourist attraction, clearly distinguishing between lawful protest activities and property damage. 'There's a difference between simply having a protest and damaging public property, it's unacceptable,' Magistrate Fleming stated emphatically.
The magistrate particularly noted that 'this was the first time you've done something that is really criminal', highlighting the seriousness of the offence against Morrison's previously clean record.
Sentencing and Future Proceedings
As a Bachelor of Arts student with aspirations to become a teacher, Morrison expressed concern about receiving a criminal conviction that could potentially affect his career prospects. Taking this into consideration, Magistrate Fleming afforded Morrison the opportunity to avoid a formal conviction.
Instead, the court placed Morrison on a conditional release order for a period of one year. The matter will return to court in February, where a compensation order for the clean-up costs associated with removing the graffiti will be finalised.
This case highlights the legal boundaries surrounding protest activities in Australia, particularly when such actions involve damage to public infrastructure. The judicial response underscores that while freedom of expression is protected, deliberate property damage crosses into criminal territory with significant legal consequences.
