Commissioner Lanyon’s continuation in office has become untenable because he has publicly prejudged the faultlessness of NSW Police officers whose conduct is now the subject of serious complaints and an independent inquiry. By issuing categorical denials of “police brutality,” repeatedly describing the operation as appropriate and proportionate, and portraying officers as having shown “remarkable restraint,” he has effectively exonerated his own organisation in advance of the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission’s (LECC) investigation into police misconduct. In doing so, he has discounted extensive video evidence and eyewitness accounts and undermined the credibility of complainants and civil liberties advocates.

Such prejudgment is incompatible with the independence and integrity of the oversight process. The LECC is now tasked with conducting a thorough, evidence‑based investigation into the very events that the Commissioner has already publicly declared to be beyond reproach. This creates at least three serious risks to the public interest:

• It exerts institutional pressure on serving officers and other witnesses who may perceive that any evidence critical of police conduct conflicts with their chief’s publicly stated position.
• It invites the perception that NSW Police, from the top down, are primarily engaged in reputational damage control rather than in full and frank cooperation with independent scrutiny.
• It erodes public confidence that the LECC’s work will be met with openness, particularly if its conclusions diverge from the Commissioner’s prior assurances.

The community must be able to trust that when allegations of excessive force arise—especially against vulnerable groups, including religious minorities exercising their right to protest and worship—the most senior police officer in the state will approach those allegations with impartiality, humility, and a clear commitment to accountability. Commissioner Lanyon’s public statements instead reveal a closed mind, a defensive instinct to absolve NSW Police before all the evidence has been tested, and a readiness to frame the issue as one of public order rather than of potential rights violations.

For these reasons, we submit that it is no longer tenable for Commissioner Lanyon to remain in his position while the LECC inquiry is on foot. Standing him aside, or removing him from office, is necessary to:

• Safeguard the actual and perceived independence of the LECC investigation.
• Remove any risk of direct or indirect interference with witnesses, document production, or internal culture during the inquiry.
• Begin restoring public confidence that NSW Police are subject to genuine, not merely performative, accountability.

We therefore call on the NSW Government to act in the public interest by urgently:

• Standing Commissioner Mal Lanyon aside, or removing him from office, pending the completion and publication of the LECC’s findings; and
• Publicly affirming that senior police leadership must refrain from prejudging matters that are, or are likely to be, the subject of independent oversight.

Only by taking these steps can the Government credibly assure the public that no person, however senior, is above scrutiny, and that the truth about the policing of the Herzog protests will be determined by evidence, not by pre‑emptive declarations from those under investigation.