Mr Marshall said he understood that police appointments were allowed in court only by discretion of the sitting magistrate, but said he was not aware of court safety issues in his electorate.

“But I would not like to see a terrible situation where something tragic happened and we did have police there, because they would be there with the accused, but they weren’t able to subdue a potential assailant, whether they were the accused or someone in the crowd,” Mr Marshall said.

He said the freedom to observe court hearings was fairly relaxed and security appliances such as metal detectors were not installed in regional courthouses.

“People can just literally walk in off the street. It’s like going to a council meeting.”

Mr Marshall said prefacing the argument to equip officers in court, he questioned the reasoning behind probation of armed police in courtrooms.

“Look at is from the other way around. Police wear appointments when they go out to aid them in performance in their duties to keep their community safe for law and order,” he said.

“So what the Police Association says to me is quite often, they will get requests to come across to court rooms when there are difficult issues or when duress buttons are pressed because the police that are currently in the courts don’t have their appointments.”

Mr Marshall qualified his position by saying he felt police testifying as witness should not wear appointments.

Scott Weber is the president of the NSW Police Association. He said the issue of public safety in a court environment was not a new issue. 

“Even leaving aside the escalating terror-related threat and attacks here and overseas, courthouses can be pressure cooker environments and police need to be properly equipped when confronted with a violent situation,” Mr Weber said.

“Judges, Magistrates and court officials can’t always control what happens in the courtroom.”