Graham Connolly, a 41-year-old from Newcomb, Victoria, appeared in the Adelaide Magistrates Court facing charges related to a controversial march held by the National Socialist Network (NSN) at the South Australian War Memorial on Australia Day. Connolly is one of 17 individuals charged with obstructing police and displaying a Nazi symbol, specifically the group’s insignia, which has been associated with Nazi ideology, although it is not officially banned.
During the court proceedings, Connolly, who connected via phone, requested that the charges be dismissed, insisting he had not committed any crimes. However, Magistrate John Clover informed him that such arguments were not appropriate at this stage. The magistrate emphasised that he could only schedule a pre-trial conference for the charges, which Connolly will attend again on May 15.
Another individual connected to the march, 29-year-old Joel Thomas Davis, also from Victoria, failed to appear in court. He faces two counts of displaying a Nazi symbol on January 26 and 28 and was arrested outside the City Watch House while awaiting the others charged. In media statements prior to his arrest, Davis expressed confidence that the charges would not hold in court. However, after his absence, the matter was adjourned, and he was given a new appearance date of April 4, with a potential arrest warrant looming if he fails to comply.
Under recent South Australian legislation introduced in 2024, individuals displaying swastikas or Nazi symbols, or performing Nazi salutes, risk hefty fines of up to $20,000 or a year in prison. Additionally, earlier in March, charges against another NSN member, Mason James Robbins, were dropped by police, who agreed to cover his costs. Robbins faced charges for carrying an offensive weapon and using a Nazi symbol or salute, but the reasons for the withdrawal of these charges remain undisclosed by the police.
This situation reflects ongoing legal and societal challenges regarding the display of extremist symbols and ideologies in Australia, particularly given the heightened scrutiny surrounding hate speech and actions in recent years. The outcomes of these cases could have significant implications for future legislation and the public’s engagement with such contentious issues.